Destoyers are quite a bit unbalnced

[ThatOneBounced]

Destroyers are starting to become much more useful, in my opinion, than any other ship in the game. 99% of my deaths are from destroyers making a suicide run at my battle line and then just throwing hundreds of torpedoes at and sneaking away mostly unharmed. The issue lies in the fact that destroyers can close the distance without a scratch and then dump every torpedo ever created at my ships. This causes the lost of usually a battleship, a chunk of my cruisers, and all of my own destroyers who maneuvered to counter the hostile destroyers. Maybe it could be because Mostly I use all my secondaries on my capital ships to defend so it frees up the main guns to fire at larger targets who are easier to hit or cause damage to other battleships who can cause a world of pain when left unattended. Now, this has come up many times before, but it must be said that TARGET SIZE and TARGET SPEED penalties are way too  punishing for larger capital ships thus destroyers having the ability to release the point blank range torpedo spreads. This has the effect of destroyers being the most efficient unit in tonnage sunk vs tonnage lost in the campaign. maybe secondaries need a larger accuracy buff to combat suicidal destroyers or accuracy penalties need to be cranked down a few notches. Also maneuverability is a key factor, sometimes it's straight up impossible to avoid as soon as I see torpedoes in the water. Am I the only one suffering from this? or have I just not found the key to countering destroyers effectively?

[Purgato]

17 minutes ago, ThatOneBounced said:

Destroyers are starting to become much more useful, in my opinion, than any other ship in the game. 99% of my deaths are from destroyers making a suicide run at my battle line and then just throwing hundreds of torpedoes at and sneaking away mostly unharmed. The issue lies in the fact that destroyers can close the distance without a scratch and then dump every torpedo ever created at my ships. This causes the lost of usually a battleship, a chunk of my cruisers, and all of my own destroyers who maneuvered to counter the hostile destroyers. Maybe it could be because Mostly I use all my secondaries on my capital ships to defend so it frees up the main guns to fire at larger targets who are easier to hit or cause damage to other battleships who can cause a world of pain when left unattended. Now, this has come up many times before, but it must be said that TARGET SIZE and TARGET SPEED penalties are way too  punishing for larger capital ships thus destroyers having the ability to release the point blank range torpedo spreads. This has the effect of destroyers being the most efficient unit in tonnage sunk vs tonnage lost in the campaign. maybe secondaries need a larger accuracy buff to combat suicidal destroyers or accuracy penalties need to be cranked down a few notches. Also maneuverability is a key factor, sometimes it's straight up impossible to avoid as soon as I see torpedoes in the water. Am I the only one suffering from this? or have I just not found the key to countering destroyers effectively?

Something that might be a better fix for this may be reducing that penalty depending on the gun.
But more specifically, the smaller the gun (to a point) the easier it is to hit a fast moving smaller ships. Granted this would only be at close ranges, which may be pretty much null and void once you get to the 10 plus km distances you get in later battles. But this is only if anything did need changing which I don't think there is.

Something to take into account is a lot of the time destroyers do not get in close without a scratch. Even if there is a low chance to hit them enough fire aiming at a destroyer will land shots. A single 6 in HE shell penetrating can and will do damage to a ship of that size, maybe even slow it down and make it easier to shoot at with more shots. Also remember, secondaries are in mass most of the time for a reason, the chance of a shell hitting only goes up the more shells there are flying at a single target.
Also screen ships, while maybe not a major factor in the game right now can mitigate this issue a lot. Having some cruisers able to keep the smaller ships at a distance allowing them and the battleship's guns to fire at an arm's length is something else that may assist.

Honestly, just keep experimenting as well, destroyers will remain a major threat, torpedoes are definitely a major threat for any ship. Keeping them out of range of launching them or (and I'm unsure if they'll patch this out later) seeing when they've launched due to the torpedo reloading starting is a good way to avoid them in the first place.

 

[ThatOneBounced]

16 minutes ago, Purgato said:

Honestly, just keep experimenting as well, destroyers will remain a major threat, torpedoes are definitely a major threat for any ship. Keeping them out of range of launching them or (and I'm unsure if they'll patch this out later) seeing when they've launched due to the torpedo reloading starting is a good way to avoid them in the first place.

Just finished experimenting, tried throwing everything between my battleships and their destroyers. didn't work. aggressive torpedoes to prevent AI ships from coming close, didnt work. Then tried straight up avoiding engagement entirely and maybe throwing faster cruisers at them, they still just launched torpedoes at me (and a ton at that). Just struggling in general with preventing destroyers being in launch range when they are not visible or just became visible then my battle line goes insane from flagship being switched or in complete disarray from torpedo avoidance maneuvers or getting pummeled. 

[Purgato]

12 minutes ago, ThatOneBounced said:

Just finished experimenting, tried throwing everything between my battleships and their destroyers. didn't work. aggressive torpedoes to prevent AI ships from coming close, didnt work. Then tried straight up avoiding engagement entirely and maybe throwing faster cruisers at them, they still just launched torpedoes at me (and a ton at that). Just struggling in general with preventing destroyers being in launch range when they are not visible or just became visible then my battle line goes insane from flagship being switched or in complete disarray from torpedo avoidance maneuvers or getting pummeled. 

Sorry I didn't ask before, but is there a particular mission you're currently doing? That may make it a little easier to help out with this situation.

I ask since over time towers and other technologies can help out with even spotting the smallest ships at range. Also I will fully admit, it can be messy to try and keep a battle line somewhat together at this point. If the whole thing collapses I'd recommend pausing right as the leading ship in a column switches and removing the old one it from the group and manually pulling it away. You can do that as well if any of the ships within it may be near to running into some torpedoes to manually maneuver them away.

[ThatOneBounced]

23 minutes ago, Purgato said:

Sorry I didn't ask before, but is there a particular mission you're currently doing? That may make it a little easier to help out with this situation.

I ask since over time towers and other technologies can help out with even spotting the smallest ships at range. Also I will fully admit, it can be messy to try and keep a battle line somewhat together at this point. If the whole thing collapses I'd recommend pausing right as the leading ship in a column switches and removing the old one it from the group and manually pulling it away. You can do that as well if any of the ships within it may be near to running into some torpedoes to manually maneuver them away.

custom battles 1915 or 1925 was then i did my tests, one was an actually battle (1915) then I switched to 1925 to do another battle which caused me to actually experiment with 1 battleship and 8 destroyers vs 6 battleships  and came out on top

[madham82]

I agree something needs to change. The reality is no DD would ever charge point blank to launch torps like do in the game. More frequently DD tactics were to launch at range to force the enemy to scatter or turn away. Another thing I am wondering is torpedo range needs to be rebalanced in the tech. The Long Lance had ranges of 20-40km, but that should be the pinnacle of the tech tree. It seems to me that the ranges are frequently too long for the year/tech, but I'll let others comment about what was realistic during the time frames of the game. 

I think @Purgato is on the right track with a buff for size of gun compared to target. My thoughts are to buff secondaries at ranges under 10km and scale with tech. DDs should be very hard to hit at medium and long range, but anything under 10km should be suicide at late tech levels. 

I also think most DDs should not have reloads (as historical). Reload tech should be costly to balance and take more time. This would make their use much more calculated and not spamming like they do now. 

We also definitely need auto evasion logic for friendly ships. It large battles it is hard enough keeping track of everything. The AI doesn't have that issue and knows how to avoid torps.

 

Now for my recommendations on dealing with them in game. I focus fire all guns on any approaching too close. 8" secondaries seem to be the most effective as even a couple of double or triple gun mounts can put out enough shells to get hits reliably. And usually 1 causes a big enough loss to speed to make it easy prey. Anything under 5" really isn't worth it unless you have excess $/weight in your build. If you are swarmed by DDs, just fire on them long enough to get them to break away. Then they will be easier to deal with if they come back at you. 

 

[ThatOneBounced]

1 minute ago, madham82 said:

Now for my recommendations on dealing with them in game. I focus fire all guns on any approaching too close. 8" secondaries seem to be the most effective as even a couple of double or triple gun mounts can put out enough shells to get hits reliably. And usually 1 causes a big enough loss to speed to make it easy prey. Anything under 5" really isn't worth it unless you have excess $/weight in your build. If you are swarmed by DDs, just fire on them long enough to get them to break away. Then they will be easier to deal with if they come back at you.

for the secondaries question i use 5 inch turrets and 6 inch tertiary or all 6 inch if i have space 

[Purgato]

8 minutes ago, ThatOneBounced said:

for the secondaries question i use 5 inch turrets and 6 inch tertiary or all 6 inch if i have space 

That may be your problem. While 6 inches are fine, using a 5 inch gun is just a barely capable gun. It should be used maybe as a backup at most, that or just something small to keep damage up on longer lasting engagements. Also getting the reload time as low as possible would be a good plan. Maybe even try light shells along with reloading tech. But I will say using as many guns as possible is still probably viable even with 5 inches.

But like @madham82 said, the AI for destroyers is a little bit busted. I seriously think there isn't too much wrong with the mechanics of hitting them or around them. It's more just their insatiable and near suicidal blood lust at the moment. Which I hope might be fixed one day soon and that they might function a bit more realistically in the future.

[madham82]

I'd try some 8" in place of 5/6"s, just a couple and see if you don't get better results. Also kiting away from the DDs can be useful because the accuracy is low on those angles. The DDs will try to close in that much more, giving you time to hit them thru volume of fire. 

[ThatOneBounced]

18 minutes ago, Purgato said:

That may be your problem. While 6 inches are fine, using a 5 inch gun is just a barely capable gun. It should be used maybe as a backup at most, that or just something small to keep damage up on longer lasting engagements. Also getting the reload time as low as possible would be a good plan. Maybe even try light shells along with reloading tech. But I will say using as many guns as possible is still probably viable even with 5 inches.

But like @madham82 said, the AI for destroyers is a little bit busted. I seriously think there isn't too much wrong with the mechanics of hitting them or around them. It's more just their insatiable and near suicidal blood lust at the moment. Which I hope might be fixed one day soon and that they might function a bit more realistically in the future.

my main philosophy with secondaries is as many as possible, firing as fast possible, but so far the 8 inch guns seem to be working a charm

on the light ammo choice, I had an interesting idea, I think secondaries and main guns should have different ammo type selectors. secondaries can have light-standard-heavy with light being effective as quick firing guns, but useless against even the lightest of capital ship armor, and the heavy being the slower firing, more effective in dealing some extra damage at close range ammo type.

[arkhangelsk]

I must say that this is NOT my experience with destroyers. If anything, in practical terms, they are a little too easy to hit. Let me make a suggestion, though. Use the main guns. Then all you will have to do is get one hit (which you can usually get if you wait long enough) and destroyer should be obliterated.

There are a few missions in the Naval Academy that focus on anti-torpedo defense. Did you beat those?

And please, no artificial buffs to the guns. The main reason secondaries are useful is that they fire more shells, so the chance of getting at least one hit increases. Not because they have better base stats or mysterious buffs.

And yes, when you detect the torpedoes it is often too late to evade if you are in a battleship. Remember that the AI is always attentive to the torpedoes - you may never hit it with your torps.

As far as realism is concerned, there are so many examples when little destroyers got close to a large ship and let loose effective torpedo salvoes or just could never be hit. Some of the ships making runs at Bismarck got all the way down to 4000m and they all survived.

[ThatOneBounced]

34 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

I must say that this is NOT my experience with destroyers. If anything, in practical terms, they are a little too easy to hit. Let me make a suggestion, though. Use the main guns. Then all you will have to do is get one hit (which you can usually get if you wait long enough) and destroyer should be obliterated

cant relate to this strategy. Yes being able to one shot ships is possible, but ammo is tight and choosing to waste 10+ salvos on a 1.2%-9% hit chance or continue pounding enemy battleships (where the more shots you take at them the more the hit chance) who's at around 40% in the same amount of salvos fired. if I had the choice between using my ammo to make sure I can kill 3 battleships with units who stand a fighting chance when they fire back or give up 1-2 of them to kill 3 destroyers who quickly have dropped torpedoes and turned tail (while also maneuvering so its a low hit chance on top of OWN MANEUVER). So its not worth dragging in the extra ammunition and also risk higher magazine explosion from torpedoes while also trying to kill ships carrying massive amounts of torpedoes.

 

34 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

As far as realism is concerned, there are so many examples when little destroyers got close to a large ship and let loose effective torpedo salvoes or just could never be hit. Some of the ships making runs at Bismarck got all the way down to 4000m and they all survived.

The issue with this example is this is one modern battleship who is already distracted by King George V and Rodney and with them are a dozen of cruisers and destroyers. At the point where said ships closed the distance to fire torpedoes, Bismark is in bad shape from being mauled to death by the battleships and any guns still operating are greatly overwhelmed. it's impossible to sink even the smallest of vessels at that point.

A more accurate interpretation of destroyer captains can be found in captain Ernest Evans of the Johnston at Samar, but even then, he had rain squalls to mask him and several other destroyers and destroyer escorts. However they only destroyed or damaged heavy cruisers and most of the destroyers in the action were sunk or seriously damaged.

yes i have beaten all the the anti torpedo missions, but I play mostly custom battles giving the battles a more practical feel.

Edited April 2, 2020 by ThatOneBounced

[arkhangelsk]

I meant the night attack by a bunch of British destroyers before KGV and Rodney moved onto the scene. Not a single destroyer was killed.

Historically, secondaries just weren't that effective (you might go dredge up the Alpha 2 thread, when destroyers were even harder to kill). One percent hit rates really were quite realistic.

 

[ThatOneBounced]

1 hour ago, arkhangelsk said:

I meant the night attack by a bunch of British destroyers before KGV and Rodney moved onto the scene. Not a single destroyer was killed.

Historically, secondaries just weren't that effective (you might go dredge up the Alpha 2 thread, when destroyers were even harder to kill). One percent hit rates really were quite realistic.

 

once again it is not fair comparison, night action in the 1940s is significantly different in terms of visibility.  The destroyers had the wind in their favor with rail squalls and pitch black surroundings. Bismark itself severely damaged her own radar so she can't target the ships around her  meaning they could get close. Once again I want to refer you to Samar, broad daylight but the destroyers used rain squalls to get in close enough to be a threat and wreaked havoc on Center Force. in both your scenario and mine, none of the larger capital ships could reliably target the smaller ships because of environmental factors. As of right now there is no weather meaning that there is no reason that these ships are so difficult to hit. For your scenarios to be the dream function of smaller ships, it would be beneficial to buff secondaries (be honest to me, find me a broad daylight surface action where a destroyer screen straight up threw themselves at enemy capital ships and won) and create weather mechanics that can influence accuracy to make ships harder to hit to add some strategy instead of suicide runs     

[RAMJB]

4 minutes ago, ThatOneBounced said:

Bismark itself severely damaged her own radar so she can't target the ships around her

Bismarck's radar was nothing but a rangefinding aid for her optical rangefinders, and her optical rangefinders were actually more accurate. It was a decimetric wavelenght set with very limited resolution, and incapable of true blind firing.

Germany didn't have any blindfire capable radar until they began manufacturing centimetric sets by 1945, and by that stage it was only a theoretical capability, as by that time all the big units of the kriegsmarine were either in the bottom of the sea or unseaworthy at port.

Besides, that radar was used to assist main battery firing solutions. I've seen absolutely nothing that implies it was in any way involved in secondary gun firing solutions.

At any rate, the night encounter with the destroyers would've ended exactly the same way as it did, with or without radar. Also, it's not the only instance of surface encounters where destroyers and big fighting ships were involved that points out anything other than destroyers being quite difficult targets. The Twins vs Ardent&Acasta, Hipper vs Glownworm, Scharnhorst vs the repeated DD attacks in the initial stages of North Cape, Guadalcanal, etc - all give similar conclusions as the Bismarck vs DDs night encounter.

Edited April 3, 2020 by RAMJB

[ThatOneBounced]

1 minute ago, RAMJB said:

Bismarck's radar was nothing but a rangefinding aid for her optical rangefinders, and her optical rangefinders were actually more accurate. It was a decimetric wavelenght set with very limited resolution, and incapable of true blind firing.

Germany didn't have any blindfire capable radar until they began manufacturing centimetric sets by 1945, and by that stage it was only a theoretical capability, as by that time all the big units of the kriegsmarine were either in the bottom of the sea or unseaworthy at port.

I stand corrected, but still proves the point that she was still blind to ships around her

[RAMJB]

5 minutes ago, ThatOneBounced said:

I stand corrected, but still proves the point that she was still blind to ships around her

And I'll have to insist that it makes little difference.
One year before two fully combat ready german battleships had faced two assaulting british destroyers and took their merry time in sinking them both. In plain daylight and clear skies, and after having hit a carrier from 23km of distance (meaning, they were on top of their game), the encounter took hours before those ships were sunk, and not before some pretty damaging torpedo hits had happened.

I don't see why Bismarck would've fared much better alone vs four, be it at day or night. But that's besides the point: DDs weren't easy target for battleships. That's what it all boils down to.
 

Edited April 3, 2020 by RAMJB

[Shaftoe]

Next time you people start btching about DDs being OP in suicide runs, remember what USS Johnston achieved in reality. I'd say it's quite realistic. And yet, DDs simply don't have the capability to replace other ship classes. In a certain scenario it may work out, but once there will be more concerns to care about (those are coming with the campaign), DDs will quickly lose most of their "overpoweredness". 

And I caution you against nerfing DDs, downgrading them to the role of stage dancers - this is how you usually kill a game class and ruin larger balance. 

 

[Cptbarney]

4 hours ago, Shaftoe said:

Next time you people start btching about DDs being OP in suicide runs, remember what USS Johnston achieved in reality. I'd say it's quite realistic. And yet, DDs simply don't have the capability to replace other ship classes. In a certain scenario it may work out, but once there will be more concerns to care about (those are coming with the campaign), DDs will quickly lose most of their "overpoweredness". 

And I caution you against nerfing DDs, downgrading them to the role of stage dancers - this is how you usually kill a game class and ruin larger balance. 

 

True, i mean look at the mess that is world of warships. A bloody disaster in its own right. PVP there is trash for the most part, nevermind the speshul metas (HE spam for example) but also the godawful playerbase (mainly skill, far less toxic than other games i've played in).

[madham82]

4 hours ago, Shaftoe said:

Next time you people start btching about DDs being OP in suicide runs, remember what USS Johnston achieved in reality. I'd say it's quite realistic. And yet, DDs simply don't have the capability to replace other ship classes. In a certain scenario it may work out, but once there will be more concerns to care about (those are coming with the campaign), DDs will quickly lose most of their "overpoweredness". 

And I caution you against nerfing DDs, downgrading them to the role of stage dancers - this is how you usually kill a game class and ruin larger balance. 

 

You mean how it launched it's torpedoes just within range, scored 1 hit on a cruiser that didn't sink, then had took serious hits that forced it to withdraw? Yes that is very realistic, but had Kurita not been so timid, the battle results would have been quite different. Some of things I have witnessed in the game with DDs approaching a fleet of my ships and not taking a single hit because they are going 45+kts are not. 

I will concede the accuracy isn't as much a problem as the unrealistic reloads and accuracy at range of AI DDs. That's why something needs to change. Right now they are OP because you can build some with lots of long range torpedoes and keep dumping spread after spread. This makes them more combat effective than any other ship, short of a 45kt BC loaded down with torps as well, but that's another problem. If they don't want to limit reloads with a costly module for ships, then something needs to be changed to reduce their chances of closing into ranges it is impossible to avoid their torps. 

Edited April 3, 2020 by madham82

[ThatOneBounced]

5 hours ago, Shaftoe said:

Next time you people start btching about DDs being OP in suicide runs, remember what USS Johnston achieved in reality. I'd say it's quite realistic. And yet, DDs simply don't have the capability to replace other ship classes. In a certain scenario it may work out, but once there will be more concerns to care about (those are coming with the campaign), DDs will quickly lose most of their "overpoweredness". 

And I caution you against nerfing DDs, downgrading them to the role of stage dancers - this is how you usually kill a game class and ruin larger balance. 

 

Might I refer you to my point earlier

 

16 hours ago, ThatOneBounced said:

A more accurate interpretation of destroyer captains can be found in captain Ernest Evans of the Johnston at Samar, but even then, he had rain squalls to mask him and several other destroyers and destroyer escorts. However they only destroyed or damaged heavy cruisers and most of the destroyers in the action were sunk or seriously damaged

yes i did bring them up, but I also said why in that scenario, the destroyers pulled off the  attack. there are no such thing as visibility obstructing environmental events (other than smoke screen) to mask any advances. which was my suggestion earlier. In campaign destroyers will  present a major problem as of right now I can plan a fleet of entirely destroyers (and maybe a single capital ship to distract enemies) and pretty much win most large scale conflicts.The cost of the destroyer (material cost, build time, and maintenance costs) are cheap (and for good reason thats not an issue) and they can take on a entire battleship line and completely obliterate it and skate away. If I take heavily losses (lest say 70% of a destroyer flotilla) i can just replace them after half a year to a whole year and repeat the process. the other nations are now without their major super weapons for a long period of time and maybe might not have the funds to replace them while I can just keep printing any destroyer I lost and maybe keep adding torpedo tubes to later versions. there's no reason to build anything bigger than a heavy cruiser or maybe light cruisers which that can destroy smaller screen units and distract battleships (and it can drop it's own fair share of torpedoes to cause disarray in the enemy battle line) because destroyers can sink ships 90 times their displacement at little to no cost. sounds broken if you ask me.

If you want destroyer rushing then the battle environment may need to have weather to accommodate. secondaries should be more accurate or have the overall MANEUVER and SPEED  penalties be knocked down a peg at the addition to create rain squalls to make destroyers harder to hit and create more strategy in their attacks 

Edited April 3, 2020 by ThatOneBounced

[arkhangelsk]

18 hours ago, ThatOneBounced said:

custom battles 1915 or 1925 was then i did my tests, one was an actually battle (1915) then I switched to 1925 to do another battle which caused me to actually experiment with 1 battleship and 8 destroyers vs 6 battleships  and came out on top

Look, I just ran that experiment. The destroyers were really easy to kill and I basically just let the computer do all the work.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/nWJsvc7zB9sXJBnS8

Sure, one of my battleships got clipped pretty good by torpedoes and one other got nicked by one at the end, but basically neither was in any danger.

I really don't think we have to worry about AI destroyers being the end of us

[ThatOneBounced]

 

19 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

Look, I just ran that experiment. The destroyers were really easy to kill and I basically just let the computer do all the work.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/nWJsvc7zB9sXJBnS8

Sure, one of my battleships got clipped pretty good by torpedoes and one other got nicked by one at the end, but basically neither was in any danger.

I really don't think we have to worry about AI destroyers being the end of us

https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipO9WlEYQ0zhhPRhyfiZDOrrZ0PUxIh2th2zxo66

just did this test, no contest. 

[madham82]

18 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

Look, I just ran that experiment. The destroyers were really easy to kill and I basically just let the computer do all the work.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/nWJsvc7zB9sXJBnS8

Sure, one of my battleships got clipped pretty good by torpedoes and one other got nicked by one at the end, but basically neither was in any danger.

I really don't think we have to worry about AI destroyers being the end of us

If they are all same class of DD, then 32kts max speed really isn't really showing the speed penalty. I know the issues I have seen are all very fast DD builds and missions that force you to take on a fleet with DDs with a single or handful of friendly ships. 

[arkhangelsk]

6 minutes ago, ThatOneBounced said:

 

https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipO9WlEYQ0zhhPRhyfiZDOrrZ0PUxIh2th2zxo66

just did this test, no contest. 

Your link isn't working for me. I did, however, just do it in the reverse direction.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/qvvBzcx16gG8ACgVA

By making 40 knot DDs, I managed to get about 4 of those battleships before all my DDs died. I will buy that if I handled them better, I can get 6.

So basically, when the human builds and controls the BBs, he wins pretty easy. When he builds and controls the DDs, same. Though i definitely worked harder when fighting as the DDs, and it'll probably take longer to replace tjhe lost ones than patch up my BBs.

A lot of the problem, from what I can see is that the AI doesn't start hitting the DDs before it is too late. Though the hit rates are really suppressed, they could still have done much better if they hadn't focus fired on my BB until my DDs got too close.

11 minutes ago, madham82 said:

If they are all same class of DD, then 32kts max speed really isn't really showing the speed penalty. I know the issues I have seen are all very fast DD builds and missions that force you to take on a fleet with DDs with a single or handful of friendly ships. 

Well, but human players really hate the AI when it actually does its best to win by building fast ships. That's why enemy ships are on average slower this round. Having said that, BB vs 12 DD mission before the latest changes shows that defeating DDs isn't that hard if you plan.