Yeah, I actually thought of that scenario while talking about the 'leave behind' bases though those bases were much more extensive than what we are discussing.

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Petrick,

I would argue that the Federation FB-111 could be rearmed for additional attacks at a casual base as a F-111 can given that it is simply a stretched F-111 that can't fit on a mech link.

It would be well suited for this proposed tactic/scenario.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 01:59 pm: Edit

Trent Telenko:

At this point I have no choice but to disagree with you based on the paranthetical statement near the end of the first paragraph of the ship description.

I do not know where the break point of "cannot be loaded by deck crews without a ready rack" is, but it would appear to be somewhere between F-111 and FB-111.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 02:42 pm: Edit

It seems to me that we have already discussed a number of things that would need to be settled if this were to be written up as a fighter mini-campaign/scenario series:

1. possible back ground. (the 'stagnent war' thing).
2. selections of forces (see SPP posts above for F-18's ('B' , 'C' and Mega fighters, not to mention possible Bomber group.) Personally, I'm leaning towards fighters, but a compelling case for offensive bomber operations could be made.
3. a solid Logistical support structure (using shuttle convoy's) to establish and supply a chain of casual bases.
4. a variety of missions ranging from anti shipping roles to base defense (in the event the enemy discovers the fighter hangers.)
5. An excellent opportunity to illustrate pilot quality rules as well as the effect of using your ammunition/ordinance supplies responsibly...if you shoot off all of the restricted availability items in the first 2 missions, you wont have them available for the completion of the campaign...
6. makes good use of the repair capacity of the bases and economy of force inthat the player must salvage every fighter whenever possible or wind up short for the final battles.

Question, could this be a opportunity for shuttle towing rules in a combat scenario? suppose a damaged fighter made it back to a casual base only to be unable to continue the flight back to the hanger modules unassisted?

It would require at least one shuttle with the ability to tow another (there are a list of authorized shuttles able to do this in the rules, I think the were in the (R1.x something) section...will have to look it up.) would a dog fight fighter vs fighter scenario be interesting to people with the Fed player defending the towing shuttle/damaged fighter combination?

What is the standard for mini campaigns? do we need 4 scenarios? 5? or 6?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 03:21 pm: Edit

In re item #2: While I brought up the difficulty in moving bombers, and pointed out that they simply would not be able to be rearmed without formal bases, the rules pretty much restrict them to defending planets by and large. Not sure any would be available for such an operation. You would need to convince SVC of this use.

In re item #3: The logistical support structure is handled two ways. Mostly notional/background data, not involving having the players actually go through the math of loading shuttles and moving them. The second method is to simply restrict the amount of repair and resupply that is available between scenarios with some limited capability to say "drop 16 spaces of drones from the next resupply in favor of enough "repair parts" to repair ten damage points on fighters", or some such. You would need to consider repairs carefully, perhaps defining that for purposes of the campaign any fighter that is reduced to one point short of destruction cannot have the last damage point repaired, i.e., an F-18 takes ten damage to destroy. If had nine damage, you would be able to repair Eight. This would reflect that it is a casual base with less capabilities than a full blown hangar and allow some additional gradual degradation of capability.

In re shuttle towing rules, if you develop the campaign those are decisions you will have to make.

Number of scenarios in a campaign varies, probably not more than six, but could be ten or could be only three.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 04:59 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

In re item # 2 response. If this gets to the point of being written up, I would prefer to let Bombers be an option/variant and if SVC decided against allowing bombers to be used in such a manner, he would be free to delete the reference from the campaign.

In re item # 3 response. I think you may have just written the casual base repair limits for inter-scenario repairs to the fighter wing campaign. The only thing I would add, is the casual bases could only repair fighters 1 time, after which they must receive normal maintainence from a Hanger base or suffer from the effects of bad maintainence. not sure what that effect would be...

Possibly, the fighter is inoperable and when (if) the casual base is abandoned, the fighter must be destroyed or towed to a base.

Which leads me to the number of scenarios, probably set up a matrix based on 6 month schedule (meaning the top column would be 6 months and the vertical col results of 2 die 6 for a bell curve distribution (such as the DAC uses) with the most common result (7) indicating a common type mission plus a re roll subject to a max of 3 missions in a 30 day period.

that way players could complete the campaign in as few as 6 missions or as many as 18.

to keep it reasonable, some missions could only occur 1 time in 6 months...such as the mobile base one, they get 1 shot at it, and if it comes up again it counts as a missed interception.

an example of a mission that could only happen 1 time every month would be attacking a tug or convoy acting as a supply point. they get 1 shot at it in 30 days, and if the same result happens during the same month, counts as a missed interception.

in the 6th month of operations, the last result (12 or 'box cars') indicates the enemy discovered the hanger modules. the scenario becomes base defense with only fighters and shuttles (and maybe 2 free traders evacuating the personnel)...obviously such a result would only hapen 1 time...and the moral of the story is they waited too long before moving on to greener pastures!

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 05:16 pm: Edit

IIRC, Petrick, one of the Captain's logs modified the ship FB-111 ship description in calling the FB-111 and GB-111 "heavy fighters" after J2 came out.

I do recall a specific statement that the FB-111 and GB-111 had the F-111's drone/Pl-D fire rates rather than the lower bomber seeking weapon fire rates.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 05:38 pm: Edit

Trent Telenko:

Cite the reference please, otherwise I am sticking with what I said, and launch rates are irrelevant.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 07:07 pm: Edit

It was regarding what types of ground bases they would be serviced at.

IE a standard 12 box FGB-M, instead of a specially designed Light Bomber Base.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 09:45 am: Edit

Hmmm...

Looking at the (T0.0) MINI-CAMPAIGNS rules section.

Several scenarios have already been written that deal with the missions we've discussed for this topic.

Question, If I go ahead with this, is it permissible to refer to scenarios already published instead of having to "reinvent the wheel" for every possible mission an IFS could encounter?

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 01:15 pm: Edit

Petrick,

FYI:

CL 25 page 31

“(R2.F16) The FB-111 is a two space fighter that uses the bomber damage system and can only operate from ground bases, but just to be completely confusing it uses the F-111 weapons launch rate.”

“(R6.F1) The Gorn GB-111 is a heavy fighter that uses the bomber rules and can only operate from ground bases. It has the F-111 weapons launch rate (four per turn). It carries two Plasma-Ks and six Plasma-Ds.”

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 02:12 pm: Edit

Trent Telenko:

Neither of those changes anything. At most, you could argue there is a gray area, which is what the FB-111 is. It is larger than the F-111, but smaller than what is normally seen as a medium bomber. Given that, I stand by what I said.

Jeff Wile:

If you can put together a reasonable campaign, you could certainly reference scenarios to be used, either historical or generic, whether found in non-campaign or campaign formats. Your problem is going to be making a campaign that is interesting in its own right, and not a simple knockoff of the existing carrier campaign without the carrier groups.

By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 05:43 pm: Edit

Petrick,

Would a FB-111/GB-111 be able to operate from fighter bases rather than medium bomber bases then?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 05:53 pm: Edit

Trent Telenko:

"Uses the BOMBER rules . . ."

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

I think the most interesting approach would be a fighter wing (lets call it the 71st Star Fleet Marine Corps fighter wing) consisting of the 212th, 213th, and 214th Fighter squadrons(we need squadron names, such like 214 is the 'black sheep squadron' or something like it).

The real challange is going to be keeping it simple enough to play.

with 36 fighters (plus 6 spares) and all of the equipment, bases and shuttles its going to rival a full PDU in complexity.

Plus, its going to demand a coalition player, and always being on the defense isn't likely to be much fun.

Guess I'll need to think about orders of battle for the Klingons and likely responses.

probably would include a Qship, the MB tug and F5B refered to before. multiple numbers of convoys. replacements of destroyed ships will almost have to include armed freighters.

I'm going to take some more time and think about it.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 06:21 pm: Edit

Jeff, remember, no one TRIES to set up ballanced interesting battles in real life.

Even if it is common there is no real point to playing out: three squadrons jump a convoy of 6F-S, 2F-L, and one police E3 in an area where no reinforcements are easily available. We know what happens, the E3 kills or damages one fighter and disengages (possibly crippled) while the frieghters all die.

Thus you are probably examining a set of raiding squadrons where everything goes wrong, convoys all seem to include enough Q-ships, armed freighters, and escorts to at least have a chance. Casual bases are found and the fighters have to be held long enough for the frieght shuttles to all get clear before the fighters can withdraw. A F5V+F4R in transit happen to spot the warp trail and attack the fighters, while they are RETURNING from a raid and have few drones on board. Star Fleet Command suddenly realizes that stopping a particular ship with supplies is an 'all costs' mission, and orders our heroes to attack despite the escorts....

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 06:53 pm: Edit

Douglas Lampert:

I know! I know!

but the example you cited is an after the fact recognition...what we need is a scenario generator for IFS encounters that can replicate the "fog of war" imagery while having the virtue of being interesting and playable.

Although I havent presented any ideas yet, what I'm considering is a double blind hidden depolyment.

Klingon player knows he has to get convoyus through to points a, B and C. he has one frigate to cover the sector. does he stay with one convy, or pick location D because it puts him within fast reaction range of the convoys.

and lets not forget that the admiral will have somebody's reproductive organs if the Tug and Mobile base get wacked again this month, so he has to be REALLY REALLY CLOSE to location E. Oh, and Intelligence wants the F5B at location F because the THINK and Orion Pirate is operating out of an asteroid belt there.

mean while back at IFS operations office of the 71st SFMC fighter wing, targeting orders are being relayed to fighter squadrons 212, 213 and 214. Best guess is convoys x, y, and z are unescorted so no need for a maximum effortthere, or we could hit the mobile base again and try to scrap the tug with it.

decisions decisions decisions!

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 10:27 am: Edit

I think you are better off just presenting a series of scenarios rather than a scenario generator. This is somewhat a matter of opinion, and if you are doing the work you can do as you like, but it is a LOT easier to build 6 interesting balanced scenarios than to build a miniature stratigic game that produces interesting balanced scenarios.

I have thought about double blind systems for pirates (which is a similar problem), and the trouble is that if things are balanced to produce reasonable scenarios then the pirate player always knows he is going up against something tough (i.e. if I do not see any escorts then either there are reinforcements coming or there is a Q-ship), so you do not really gain much surprise for all that work. And it is easier to just have the Klingon draw a card prior to the scenario and on a Spade he has a Q-ship, on a heart there are reinforcements coming, on a diamond the escort has a legendary engineer and outstanding crew, and on a club he is out of luck (you could additionally say that on an honor one of the large freighters is armed, but if the card is a two no klingon has any special drones or drone reloads available).

Even if you had a perfect scenario generating stratigic minigame it has the problem that it presents a convincing illusion that this is how pirates/raiders always operate. But if the defenses against your strikes are tough enough that MOST of the attacks are good scenarios then you are probably operating in the wrong area!

I would avoid a double blind system, the Klingon will never know exactly how the fighters are armed this time around, and a small random element in what is present on the Klingon side with an adjustment to victory conditions based on what is present works for each scenario at giving the Feds some uncertainty.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 11:43 am: Edit

Douglas Lampert

All of the points you raise are good ones.

But by adopting the approach you are advocating, we miss out on a couple of points SPP made earlier.

First is the supply aspect, since presenting 6 scenarios would mean some assumptions would have to be made about drone usage and other commanders option points, the players won't have to agonize about sending out a third fighter strike in the month with less than a full load of drones...or take into account the option of sending out partially repaired fighters or just shorting the strike group.

The second aspect, is the coalition side. if one player is the captain of the F5B you would have a person motivated in killing as many fighters as possible and pursuing other targets of opportunity in a campaign where he can choose where his ship goes...

"...Sir!" shouted the sensor watch officer at the Early warning base tasked to support Fighter wing # 71. The Klink F5 has warped into Ops area #6...he left the MB ungaurded! Squadron 212 is warmed up on the field and armed for anti shipping targets!"

The Marine Major in command turned to his chief of staff, and said "change the targeting orders and launch the strike. Then alert 213 for a scramble order. I want them to "PICK OFF THE ESCORT!"

Douglas, you are most likely correct, but I will regret not being able to come up with an interesting proposal for that aspect.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 03:16 pm: Edit

You can use a system similar to the game Siege of Jeruselem for consumables. Let the Fighter player pick a time delay between scenarios, he gets extra supplies the longer he waits but he has a limit on total time and 'loses' any scenarios he does not get to.

Similarly you can give the Klingon the option of either bringing one extra F5 to some scenarios (representing a heavier escort/patrol group) or a taking a straight victory point bonus since that ship was doing something else useful. You do not really need a complicated minigame to handle these things.

Heck, I am tempted to build it myself, but I would probably go pirate/mercenaries rather than fighters since I do not really like fighters.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Douglas:

I am not familiar with 'Siege of Jeruselem'...sounds interesting.

I was originally thinking of randomly generating 6 to 18 scenarios and require the fed player to participate in all of them...but I really like your suggestion.

My concern is that whatever method chosen not be overly complicated and thus lose peoples interest.

What if...we include 2 methods of resolving the various encounters...the players could choose to play any scenario out using SFB, and as an alternative, a simpler method that resolves it with just a die roll (adjusted for various modifiers) that accounts for fighter damage, and consumed stores...

that way it could be done in less that 18 separate SFB encounters.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 07:45 pm: Edit

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1710

A good game IMAO. Although the people I was playing with most of the time never let me play the Romans to show them how to get over a wall properly. (Not that I minded destroying the main assult force in the first round, but it was a bit anticlimactic the third time around.)

The Roman player conducts up to six one day assults. Each day is played out like a full scale wargame with some night turns allowed, and sets the stage for the next assult.

Between assults both sides get some % of all losses replacemed and may also get some reinforcements, the Judean replacement % being based on how much of the city they still hold, while the Roman replacement % is based on how long they wait.

The Roman also gets construction of seige towers and of ramps/mines based on how long he waits before each assult. There is some temptation to wait even before the first assult for the extra mines and gear (you should resist it). You only has nine weeks (IIRC).

Since there are something like ten separate fortified 'quarters' of the city you need to repeatedly breach or take walls to take the city.

If the Roman does not take at least a specified % of the city by the end of each assult he loses, if he does not take everything by the end he loses (loss of prestige is assumed to result in the Persians invading or the rest of the 10% or so of the Roman populace that was Jewish rising). Even if he does take everything he can still lose if at the very end too many Judeans break out.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 09:13 pm: Edit

Cool.

Just thinking out loud here.

6 months of game time to reslve the scenarios in.

I like the way the time constraints were presented in SOJ. 9 game turns is reasonable, makes it manageble compared to 32 turns for F&E...

If we were to fashion a 9 game turn thing for IFS...suppose we were to assume each game turn equals 3 weeks. 9 turns would equate to 27 weeks (close to the 26 week target.) Each game turn the IFS player could choose 3 one squadron missions or 1 max effort of 3 squadrons cooperating on a single scenario.

each game turn assumes the IFS move to a differnt area to attack different targets...if the IFS player decides to "stay" at the casual bases an extra week, he gains a modifier to the encounters roll. the Klingon player gets a modifier to find the casual bases for each week the IFS player stays put. each week extra at a casual base, the IFS player gets 1 extra squadron attack. 2 extra weeks at the same base gets the IFS player a 3 squadron attac scenario.

The Klingon player also gets a turn. after the IFS player selects a scenario (from a generated list of options) the Klingon player can "select" optional forces to reinforce the coalition forces in each scenario.

dead ships stay dead, so if the IFS player kills the F5B..its dead for all futur encounters...same with the tug, Mobile Base, and any special reinforcements such as 2nd F5B or q-ships.

Victory points count towrds satisfying victory conditions, and dead fighters (inexcess of the spares) stay dead.

I'll have to put this down on paper to see if it can come together.

Thank you for the ideas and input!

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 04:43 pm: Edit

OK-

I have taken the time an compared some ideas.

FWIW I formally admit to the world that Douglas Lampert was correct in his comments about "Double Blind" system and scenario generators...I tried several alternatives and the results were not encouraging...

Going back to the drawing board, will examine a series of chronological encounters with a narrative (such as has been used before).

A Minicampaign with 9 programed encounters and a chance for the Fed IFS player to make "opportunity attacks" using one squadron of 12 fighters and scenarios previously published.

The gimick is that the IFS has enough supplies and drones to launch 9 attacks, corresponding to the 1 attack per 3 weeks schedule posted earlier. if he wants to take advantage of opportunity raids he is going to have to not move from the casual bases after on of the 9 scheduled attacks AND count the drones returned from each mission of the9 plotted scenarios...because the drones used in the extra raids will have to be unexpended munitions...

The other factor that will be tracked is the Coalition ships encountered.

Missions #1, 4 and 7 are targeting Klingon supply grid.

Mission # 1 has 36 fed fighters attacking an F5B , a Tug, and a mobile base. If the F5b is destroyed, it does not appear in any subsequent scenario....please note:subsequent scenarios get progresively more difficult. if the Fed players fails to destroy the F5B...in Mission #4 there will be 2 x F5B's! - one of which is the same one from scenario#1 unless it is destroyed.

Mission #4 starts with a Mobile base with 6 cargo pods, unless the Mobile base in scenario #1 was destroyed. if the Mobile base was destroyed in Scenario #1, the Mobile base is replaced by the tug acting as a supply point...unless the tug was destroyed inwhich case the tug is replaced by a convoy acting as a supply point...

Mission #7 is a repeat of mission #4 with one more F5b added...so if in missions #1 and #4 the F5B's survived, the IFS player will be facing 3 F5b's...and if the F5B's had been destroyed in earlier scenarios they don't appear so at worst the Klingon player has only 1 F5B appearing...same with the Mobile base...except if the Mobile base and cargo pods and the gug survived scenarios #1 and #4...the IFS player has to take out a BTS with mine field! (strong justification for killing the mobile base up front!)

For missions #2, #5 and #8, its a fighter wing attack (using the surviving fighters plus spare fighters of the earlier scenarios) on convoy supply lines. Scenario #2 would normally have the F5B from scenario #1 and a standard convoy. if the F5B was destroyed, a police escort (E3?) will be present. Scenario #5 will have 2 F5B's (assuming they survived scenarios #1 and #4...) or 2 E3's if neither F5B is present. Scenario #8 will have 3 F5B's and 3 standard convoys...unless one or more of the F5B's were destroyed in a previous action inwhich case the escort will be 3 x E3's.

Scenario #3 will be a straight up duel between the IFS and whatever sector guard the Klingon high command assigned to the area....if the F5B, Tug and MObile Base all survived mission #1, the Klingons saw no need to assign a new ship to the area. this is the 2nd chance the IFS player has to attack the F5B. They better not fail!

If the F5B was destroyed, but the Tug and the Mobile base survived, the sector guard ship will be a F5L. If the F5B, and the Tug were destroyed but the Mobile base survived, the guard ship assigned will be a D5. If the Tug survived but both the F5B and the Mobile base were destroyed, the guard ship assigned will be a battle tug (which the efficient and hard working Klingon staff officers were able to get the Battle Pods assigned to the tug iin record time!)

And last, if the F5B, the tug, and the mobile base were all destroyed, the Klingons assigned a D6B to the area to "seek out and destroy the IFS"...obviously, killing the D6B will be a priority of the IFS if it intends to complete its mission.

Mission #6 is dependent on mission results of earlier scenarios. This is an attempt by the klingons to seek out the IFS "secret base" using all the warships in the area up to this point.

the Klingon Order of Battle includes:F5b-1, F5B-2, (or) E3-1, E3-2, (or) D5-1 (or) D6b-1 or the Battle tug. if all of the listed ships have been destroyed, but the Mobile base survived, it is assumed that the Klingons rushed a PF squadron to the Mobile base and the PF squadron undertakes the mission alone. Straight up fighter vs PF action.

If the mobile base was destroyed earlier, and there are no Klingon warships left in the area, the IFS redeployes to new casual bases at the extreme limit of 5 "chains" of casual bases to hit a sensitive klingon target of opportunity(which is in an area the Klingons consider "safe").

only the complete absence of effective coalition forces in the area would allow the IFS this level of freedom. the target is selected from the following list:

1 x FRD or 1 Mobile Base or 1 BATS or 1 convoy acting as a supply point.

Each of these targets is valuable to the Klingons and must be guarded. The Klingon has 3 x F5B's to guard 4 targets. He may choose to concentrate all 3 at the same place or assign 1 F5B to each of 3 of them leaving the 4th target unguarded. The IFS player may elect to send 1 squadron to each of 3 targets, and nothing against the BTS....or concentrate full strength of the IFS agains a single target...or he can attempt to take out the BTS...

This one mission can spell the end of the campaign if 3 x F5B's and the PTS with 12 fithers and a PF squadron are present. or the Klingon commander will be shot for incompetence if he allows the IFS to kill yet another mobile base, another convoy AND an FRD.

Mission #9 is the climax (or anti climax) of the campaign. depending on results of missions #1 to 8...there may not be many fighters left to the fighter wing. if there are less than 6 fighters left, the last scenario is the "retreat" with the IFS attempting to get the support people out when the Klingons discover the hidden hanger bases.

If there are between 7 and 12 fighters left, and the Klingons have ANY operating warship in the area, the scenario is E3 or F5B or D5 or D6B or battle tug attacking the pitiful remains of the IFS.

If there are between 13 and 24 fighters operational(or more!), the IFS has security in fairly good shape, and if there are NO klingon warships in the area (ie all the E3's, F5b's, D5, D6B and the Tug are all destroyed) the IFS is verging on Federation Control of the sector.

The IFS command may choose from the following missions.

A. Revisit mission #6. any target and F5B's that were previously destroyed are still destroyed. the Klingons would have replaced any destroyed target with the next closest substitute. if the FRD were destroyed, it is replced by a Tug acting as a repair ship. (if the only tug available is the one acting as a battle tug, or if more than 1 tug has been destroyed in the campaign to this point, replace with a repair ship (freighter conversion). if the mobile base in mission # 6 had already been destroyed, replace with a convoy acting as a supply point(in this case there may be 2 convoys acting as supply points at the extreme range of the IFS operations area). if the BATS had been destroyed, replace with yet another convoy acting as a supply point.
B. request emergency resupply from the Federation Starfleet requesting a Mobile Base be delivered and set up. Scenario revolves arround the IFS defending the MB from Klingon retaliation...about the only ship in the area that could respond would be the D7C...
C. The IFS determines that they can liberate a Klingon occupied federation world. Using Shuttle convoy, all surviving fighters, all 3 free trader "bug out" ships, and all available personnel from the hidden bases converted to ad hoc militia units, the squadron begins the liberation of Cassandra!(see Orbital Defense Platform thread.)

Obviously this proposal will need a lot of work, but this is where I am at in the development process.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 10:53 am: Edit

6 drafts done...and I find myself incredibly bored with the re reads...

Wanted to include in the background too much and find myself blowing way past the 100 to 150 word "Target" for mini campaign intro/background sections of Rule (T___.0) and (T___.1) sections.

IMO needs to be short, interesting and encouraging to players in such a way that they would want to play the missions.

Memo to self: Need a new approach.