From: "Santagato, L. Roger" Subject: DBA Pat Collins wrote: >what did you think of DBA, and what battles did you fight? This was my first experience with DBA. I fought two (what were called)learning scenarios. They were the Greeks vs. Goths or Gauls, I don't remember for sure. The units were: "Gauls" 4-heavy cavalry, 2-light infantry, and 6-regular infantry (called warbands); Greeks 2-heavy cavalry, 2-light cavalry, 2-light infantry, and 6-regular infantry. This was the number of units. The heavy cavalry had 3 figures and the light 2. The heavy infantry had 5 figures and the light 2. So the first time through I was the Greeks. I lost. I had very bad dice (notice a pattern here with my gaming, like when I lost the Hoorah game to Pat Collins on a dice roll). Anyway my opponent and the guy teaching agreed with me that I had bad rolls. So we switched sides. I still lost, but this time at least it was entirely my fault. I got too aggressive with my General when I didn't really have to and I got him killed. As it was I still should have won. I broke through his cavalry with mine and attacked his camp. All I had to do was throw a higher D6 than he did and I was +1 on my throw. Of course I didn't and the next turn he killed one of my light infantry units and won the game. COMMENTS ON DBA Now those of you who are familiar with DBA please don't get upset if I get this wrong. These comments are only IMHO and they are based on the two games I played and the way I was taught. I did not like the system. I thought it was too luck dependent. As I noted above I lost the first game with bad dice rolls. For those who are unfamiliar with DBA you roll one D6 to see how many pips you get. Then you spend one pip to move a unit (unless your general is dead than you spend 2 pips). Well I rolled a lot of ones and twos for my pips. My opponent's rolls were more representative of normal distribution. Which brings up the other thing I didn't like. The person who goes first at the start always goes first for every turn after that. So I went second in both my games and I was always reacting to his moves. This was very noticeable in our first game. With his normal rolls he was moving a lot of units and causing me real problems with flanks and force concentration on weak units. I had trouble reacting to this when I could only move 1 or 2 units. The combat system had good and bad. I didn't like the fact that I could not get a rank melee bonus for ranks beyond 2. I thought in this period (Ancients) that a 5 or 6 rank infantry unit (especially Greek) were pretty tough to beat head on. The good: it was simple, fast, and difficult to kill units without some planning. The winner is determined based on points. You get 1 point for each opponents unit you eliminate. Winner is checked for at the end of a players turn and not the end of a game turn. Thus the game could be over with one player going 6 times and the other only 5. You need at least 4 points to win AND more points than your opponent. Getting you general killed costs you 2 points and from then on you have to spend two pips to move a unit. Also, this could result in an automatic win for your opponent. For instance you complete 3 turns each and you killed 2 of his units and he had 1 of yours. Then on his turn (called bound for some reason) he gets your general, he wins. He had 3 points you have 2, but he has your general. The games were fast to play. I guess if you had some bad luck with dice you could redo the terrain, change sides and go at it again. I think our two games took less than 90 minutes in total. My opponent and I were miniatures players, but neither experienced with DBA. All in all I would play this again because I did have fun and there were challenges to over come. Although I am not sure how you could do a campaign type game. Roger Santagato santa@anl.gov last 3: Zulu type miniatures, 18xx, and a Quatre Bras miniatures From: Kim Harris Subject: Re: DBA Interspersed commentary from an experienced and enthusiastic DBAer: "Santagato, L. Roger" wrote: > > Pat Collins wrote: > > >what did you think of DBA, and what battles did you fight? > > This was my first experience with DBA. I fought two (what were > called)learning scenarios. They were the Greeks vs. Goths or Gauls, I don't > remember for sure. The units were: "Gauls" 4-heavy cavalry, 2-light > infantry, and 6-regular infantry (called warbands); Greeks 2-heavy cavalry, > 2-light cavalry, 2-light infantry, and 6-regular infantry. This was the > number of units. The heavy cavalry had 3 figures and the light 2. The > heavy infantry had 5 figures and the light 2. > > So the first time through I was the Greeks. I lost. I had very bad dice > (notice a pattern here with my gaming, like when I lost the Hoorah game to > Pat Collins on a dice roll). Anyway my opponent and the guy teaching agreed > with me that I had bad rolls. So we switched sides. I still lost, but this > time at least it was entirely my fault. I got too aggressive with my > General when I didn't really have to and I got him killed. > > As it was I still should have won. I broke through his cavalry with mine > and attacked his camp. All I had to do was throw a higher D6 than he did > and I was +1 on my throw. Of course I didn't and the next turn he killed > one of my light infantry units and won the game. > > COMMENTS ON DBA > > Now those of you who are familiar with DBA please don't get upset if I get > this wrong. These comments are only IMHO and they are based on the two > games I played and the way I was taught. > > I did not like the system. I thought it was too luck dependent. As I noted > above I lost the first game with bad dice rolls. For those who are > unfamiliar with DBA you roll one D6 to see how many pips you get. Then you > spend one pip to move a unit (unless your general is dead than you spend 2 > pips). Well I rolled a lot of ones and twos for my pips. This is a heartbreak, but see below. >My opponent's > rolls were more representative of normal distribution. Which brings up the > other thing I didn't like. The person who goes first at the start always > goes first for every turn after that. So I went second in both my games and > I was always reacting to his moves. This was very noticeable in our first > game. You are always reacting if you think you are reacting. There are ways to sieze the initiative during your approach. >With his normal rolls he was moving a lot of units and causing me > real problems with flanks and force concentration on weak units. I had > trouble reacting to this when I could only move 1 or 2 units. Rule #1: Keep your units together during your approach. Plan your battle tactics ahead of time and deploy as an ARMY, not a set of units. This: LHLHppPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPppCAV, Not this: LHLH pp PPPPPP PPPPPP pp PPPPPPPPPPPPPPP CAV PPPPPP PPPPPP Then the 1s and 2s don't hurt until your line is engaged or close to engagement. Formation one needs one point to maneuver all units. Formation two needs five points to maneuver all units. Rule #2: Like units with like. Light infantry and light cavalry units are maneuver and exploitation. Also they move much faster and are generally unkillable by heavy units. (Watch out for the exceptions to this rule) They can be used to seize the initiative, envelope flanks, and generally force your opponent to react to them while you position your approaching line of heavy units to best advantage. > > The combat system had good and bad. I didn't like the fact that I could not > get a rank melee bonus for ranks beyond 2. Note the scale mentioned below. >I thought in this period > (Ancients) that a 5 or 6 rank infantry unit (especially Greek) were pretty > tough to beat head on. They are. A +6 combat factor for a two rank pike block of 3000 men (a close order infantry stand is 1500 men) is the biggest smacker in the game. Also a +1 tactical factor vs. mounted. This makes them virtually unkillable in a straight up fight, since nothing short of your 1 vs his 6 with ANYTHING else in the game will double you (and its better than that against most troops), almost the only losing result is a harmless push back. Where they hurt is vs. envelopement by thinner longer lines, such as Roman legionaires (tough enough to hang, but still giving away a point of combat factor) and light infantry units of any type. Position a light infantry unit in the push back area and any pushback is fatal to both stands. This is the dilemna of pike heavy armies. They kick butt straight ahead, but are "sensitive as a virgin about the flanks and rear." > The good: it was simple, fast, and difficult to kill > units without some planning. Bingo. > > The winner is determined based on points. You get 1 point for each > opponents unit you eliminate. Winner is checked for at the end of a players > turn and not the end of a game turn. Thus the game could be over with one > player going 6 times and the other only 5. You need at least 4 points to > win AND more points than your opponent. Getting you general killed costs > you 2 points and from then on you have to spend two pips to move a unit. > Also, this could result in an automatic win for your opponent. For instance > you complete 3 turns each and you killed 2 of his units and he had 1 of > yours. Then on his turn (called bound for some reason) he gets your > general, he wins. He had 3 points you have 2, but he has your general. > The moral: Don't get your general killed. Try to commit him in situations where the worst result is a pushback. Never, Never put him on a light infantry stand. :o) > The games were fast to play. I guess if you had some bad luck with dice you > could redo the terrain, change sides and go at it again. I think our two > games took less than 90 minutes in total. My opponent and I were miniatures > players, but neither experienced with DBA. In my opinion, DBA is an outstanding depiction of the classic depth vs breadth dilemna for ancient generals. Try Epimanondas' Theban oblique order attack against another pike army sometime. Then try it against, say, Republican Romans. It works best in period. When fighting out of period, technological change distorts the combat chart, which is a masterpiece at depicting combat interrelationships. > > All in all I would play this again because I did have fun and there were > challenges to over come. Although I am not sure how you could do a campaign > type game. There are some suggestions in the back of the book. They work fairly well. Kim Harris > > Roger Santagato > santa@anl.gov > > last 3: Zulu type miniatures, 18xx, and a Quatre Bras miniatures From: "Patrick R. Collins" Subject: Re: DBA > So the first time through I was the Greeks. I lost. I had very bad dice > (notice a pattern here with my gaming, like when I lost the Hoorah game to > Pat Collins on a dice roll). Anyway my opponent and the guy teaching agreed After pretty much kicking my tush rather well most of the game. He needed a 2-6 to win! > unfamiliar with DBA you roll one D6 to see how many pips you get. Then you > spend one pip to move a unit (unless your general is dead than you spend 2 > pips). Well I rolled a lot of ones and twos for my pips. My opponent's Do you think what Alan S calls a D AVG would have helped? It's a D6 but reads 2,3,3,4,4,5? > other thing I didn't like. The person who goes first at the start always > goes first for every turn after that. So I went second in both my games and > I was always reacting to his moves. This was very noticeable in our first > game. With his normal rolls he was moving a lot of units and causing me > real problems with flanks and force concentration on weak units. I had > trouble reacting to this when I could only move 1 or 2 units. Interesting. Seems like a roll every turn would fix that. GBoH has a similar mechanic for guys like Caesar, and Alexander. But they really WERE great, not just generic generals. Seems like too much of a disadvanatge. > The combat system had good and bad. I didn't like the fact that I could not > get a rank melee bonus for ranks beyond 2. I thought in this period > (Ancients) that a 5 or 6 rank infantry unit (especially Greek) were pretty > tough to beat head on. The good: it was simple, fast, and difficult to kill > units without some planning. Did the system reward historical type tactics? I've heard that DBa gives you the proper result, but in a way that seems contrived. > The games were fast to play. I guess if you had some bad luck with dice you > could redo the terrain, change sides and go at it again. I think our two > games took less than 90 minutes in total. My opponent and I were miniatures > players, but neither experienced with DBA. Quick play is indeed a bonus in my book, and I'm willing to give up a bit to get it. Thanks for the info! Regards, Pat pcollins@prairienet.org Last Played: This Sceptered Isle, Battle Fleet, Cordite & Steel In progress: Solomons Sea http://www.prairienet.org/~pcollins From: "Wade, Nick (MN Corporate, Vic)" Subject: RE: DBA COMMENTS ON DBA Now those of you who are familiar with DBA please don't get upset if I get this wrong. These comments are only IMHO and they are based on the two games I played and the way I was taught. I did not like the system. I thought it was too luck dependent. As I noted above I lost the first game with bad dice rolls. [NW] I agree with this comment - DBA is very luck dependent. In addition some armies are markedly better than others as all have the same number of elements, but the elements have quite different relative worths. For these reasons I much prefer DBM which I think is a very good game and a reasonable simulation - in most cases, historical use of an army is best. I only play DBA for a bit of fun now and again - very much a beer & pretzel game! For those who are unfamiliar with DBA you roll one D6 to see how many pips you get. Then you spend one pip to move a unit (unless your general is dead than you spend 2 pips). Well I rolled a lot of ones and twos for my pips. My opponent's rolls were more representative of normal distribution. Which brings up the other thing I didn't like. The person who goes first at the start always goes first for every turn after that. So I went second in both my games and I was always reacting to his moves. This was very noticeable in our first game. With his normal rolls he was moving a lot of units and causing me real problems with flanks and force concentration on weak units. I had trouble reacting to this when I could only move 1 or 2 units. [NW] Another major difference between DBA and DBM - you can have 2 to 4 generals, each with their own command, so there is more chance of getting enough PIPs - of course if you don't structure the commands properly you'll have too many troops to move. The combat system had good and bad. I didn't like the fact that I could not get a rank melee bonus for ranks beyond 2. I thought in this period (Ancients) that a 5 or 6 rank infantry unit (especially Greek) were pretty tough to beat head on. The good: it was simple, fast, and difficult to kill units without some planning. [NW] The limit in number of ranks is reflective of the scale of DBA, which is a bit indeterminate, but quite large. In DBM, pike fight in up to 4 ranks and many others in two. Each element usually reflects troops in 4 ranks - hence 8-ranked hoplites fights in two ranks in DBM and 16-ranked pikes in 4. The winner is determined based on points. You get 1 point for each opponents unit you eliminate. Winner is checked for at the end of a players turn and not the end of a game turn. Thus the game could be over with one player going 6 times and the other only 5. You need at least 4 points to win AND more points than your opponent. Getting you general killed costs you 2 points and from then on you have to spend two pips to move a unit. Also, this could result in an automatic win for your opponent. For instance you complete 3 turns each and you killed 2 of his units and he had 1 of yours. Then on his turn (called bound for some reason) he gets your general, he wins. He had 3 points you have 2, but he has your general. [NW] IIRC, you only lose when your general is killed if you have lost more elements than your enemy. So I think if you have lost 1 and him 2, and then you lost your general, then you would not lose as you would have lsot 2 elements each. [NW] In DBM the issue is to demoralise your enemies army by breaking commands. When a third of a command are killed, the command breaks. When the total elements either killed or broken reaches 50% of your total army level, the army breaks and the game is over. This is a much better system than DBA. The games were fast to play. I guess if you had some bad luck with dice you could redo the terrain, change sides and go at it again. I think our two games took less than 90 minutes in total. My opponent and I were miniatures players, but neither experienced with DBA. All in all I would play this again because I did have fun and there were challenges to over come. Although I am not sure how you could do a campaign type game. [NW] If you like it you should try DBM - more figures and more fun! DBA though is good for simple fun games, and also for a campaign in an evening or two because the games are so quick you can get 4-6 finished in a night. If you want some further info on DBA try the following websites: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~nwa/dbx/index.html http://www.erols.com/brant/DBA/ http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba.html http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/dba.html Anyway, thanks for your comments - always interested to see people' views on the DB* games. ciao, Nick From: Kim Harris Subject: Re: DBA "Santagato, L. Roger" wrote: > > Kim Harris wrote: > > >You are always reacting if you think you are reacting. > >There are ways to seize the initiative during your approach. > > Will have to work on this. > > >Rule #1: Keep your units together during your approach. > > You are right. I learned that from just that 1st game. I did much better > in my second game. > > >A +6 combat factor for a two rank pike block of 3000 men (a > >close order infantry stand is 1500 men) is the biggest smacker > >in the game. This makes them virtually unkillable in a straight > >up fight > > Not the way the judge taught me. I got +3 for my heavy infantry and +1 for > the second rank. I cannot lay my hands on my rules at this moment, but I think this is wrong. Spears are a combat strength of 4 (5 vs Mtd) and get 1 tactical factor for a second rank. Pikes are a 3 (4 vs. mtd) and get a +3 tactical factor for a second rank. Warbands are a 3 vs everybody and get NO tactical factor for a second rank EXCEPT +1 vs mounted only. Some Greek armies (particularly the earlier ones) are rated spear not pike. >(+1 again if I had flank protection AND he didn't.) The tactical factor for an overlap is a MINUS ONE to the overlapped stand. This is critically important as the math for doubling is not the same if you just add one to the other side. DO NOT MAKE THIS MISTAKE. It distorts the whole combat system beyond saving. Do it right and you get historical results in combats between period armies. Do it wrong and you get nonsense results. > > In my first game he had a 2 rank war band unit attack my 2 rank Greek heavy > infantry, flanks engaged too. I was +4 and he was +3 (+2 for the war band > and +1 for the second rank). No +1 for warbands for depth. In the combat system represented by warbands, extra depth has no advantage. Charging swordsmen need room and rear ranks cannot engage, unlike pike and spear. > He rolled a push back and I lost both units of > heavy infantry. Something in the rule that when war bands push back Greek > heavy they eliminate the heavy. War bands have great impetus in the charge. If the charge is successful in breaking up the enemy formation, a bunch of maniacs with long swords in the middle of your retreat will really mess up your day. HOWEVER, you should be starting from a +6 vs +3 advantage, not a +4 vs +3. Also, the kill on push back bonus may apply only vs. blades. The more common historical opponent for Gallic warbands is Roman legionaires, rated blades, +5 vs foot, +3 vs mtd. Let's see +5+1=6 vs 3+1=4 result w/b pushed back vs 3+2=5 ditto vs 3+3=6 do over vs 3+4=7 blade pushed back and destroyed vs 3+5=8 ditto vs 3=6=9 ditto 5+2=7 vs 3+1=4 result w/b pushed back vs 3+2=5 ditto vs 3+3=6 ditto vs 3+4=7 do over vs 3+5=8 blade pushed back and destroyed vs 3=6=9 ditto 5+3=8 vs 3+1=4 warband doubled and destroyed I could go on, but IIRC from the Lotus 1,2,3 spreadsheet I wrote about ten years ago, blades vs. warband is an even fight. However, the mandatory pursuit by warbands breaks down their command and control (separates the stands, makes maneuver eat more pips) and the legionaires will usually win. Of course, the tactical factors distort this, but when everybody has the same number of units, victory goes to the clever. Uhmm, on rereading this seemingly irrelevant passage, I wish to add that when you have a combat factor 3 + tactical factor 3 for depth, + minimum die roll of 1 = 7, it gets even better for pikes straight up. However, if you lose, you lose two stands (if the push back applies and I'm not sure it does) and you are giving away a lot of flank. Could be tricky to overwhelm the warband before he surrounds you and kills everybody on a pushback. > This did not seem to make sense to me or my > opponent. See maniac reference above. > > Pat Collins wrote: > > >Do you think what Alan S calls a D AVG would have helped? > >It's a D6 but reads 2,3,3,4,4,5? Distorts the combat chart which is per---- , well, approaches perfect. > > Definitely, but Kim's points about keeping your troops in a line might be a > better idea. I know in my first game I was too spread out and I had some > units in column of 4 ranks, until the judge said don't do that. Then I just > used 2 ranks. > > >Did the system reward historical type tactics? I've heard > >that DBA gives you the proper result, but in a way that > >seems contrived. > > Don't know. I don't have enough feel for it yet. Kim Harris might want to > answer this. See the above analysis of blade vs. warband. If I have a proper understanding, this combat relationship is where Barker started in designing the combat tables. Aside from a personal opinion that in the scale and time frame given, any engagement must have a result, so we always roll over on ties, rather than carry them over to the next turn, I think that this is as close to perfect as any global approach can bring you. Someone mentioned DBM as a superior product, and I must respectfully disagree. It tries to take a linear approach to a global notion (design for detail vs design for effect?) and unless you place the extra command dice in the hands of individuals whose cooperation with you is no better than that between any two INDIVIDUALS, you have far too much control over your army. Given routine table chat, even then you have too much control. Aside from some Roman and Byzantine units, most of these troops were more herded into battle, or led as mobs, than deployed as formations. Maneuvering an army in any but the simplest fashion was virtually impossible. DBA shows this and DBM doesn't. And DBM is rarely played in a multi-player mode, which takes it even further from history. Ooops. Getting close to rant mode. Better give it up. Kim Harris > > Roger Santagato > santa@anl.gov > > last 3: Zulu type miniatures, DBA, and 18xx From: Marcus Mülbüsch Subject: Re: DBA >I cannot lay my hands on my rules at this moment, but I think this is >wrong. Spears are a combat strength of 4 (5 vs Mtd) and get 1 tactical >factor for a second rank. Pikes are a 3 (4 vs. mtd) and get a +3 >tactical factor for a second rank. My rules say: Spears +4 (+4 vs Mounted) and +1 for second rank; Pikes +3 (+4 vs. Mounted) and +3 for second rank. m.muelbuesch@uni-duisburg.de http://www.uni-duisburg.de/~sm136mu -------------------------------------------------------==(UDIC)==- You own a dog, but you can only feed a cat. Last played: East Front (comp.), Triumph and Fall of the Desert Fox In Progress: Champion Hill (PBM), RAF (solitaire) Forthcoming: Tunisia From: "Santagato, L. Roger" Subject: DBA Kim Harris wrote: >The tactical factor for an overlap is a MINUS ONE.... >DO NOT MAKE THIS MISTAKE. You are right. That is also what the judge said. I stated it wrong in my message. My opponent and I kept making this mistake until the middle of our second game. That is when the judge said the same thing you did that: >It distorts the whole combat system Thanks for the rest of your comments. TO Nick Wade I have been checking out those web sites you suggested. It seems I have a lot to learn. DBA may be more challenging than I thought. Oh, tomorrow (Saturday) I am going to be playing a Johnny Reb American Civil War scenario. My opponent said he wanted to see what dismounted Union Cavalry (with repeaters) could do. Should be fun. Roger Santagato santa@anl.gov last 3: Zulu type miniatures, DBA, and 18xx From: Kim Harris Subject: Re: DBA "Santagato, L. Roger" wrote: > > Kim Harris wrote: > > >The tactical factor for an overlap is a MINUS ONE.... > >DO NOT MAKE THIS MISTAKE. > > You are right. That is also what the judge said. I stated it wrong in my > message. My opponent and I kept making this mistake until the middle of our > second game. That is when the judge said the same thing you did that: > > >It distorts the whole combat system > > Thanks for the rest of your comments. > > TO Nick Wade I have been checking out those web sites you suggested. It > seems I have a lot to learn. DBA may be more challenging than I thought. Well, I've had overmuch fun with it. One of my fondest memories is of actually managing to beat the Roman legions with the Gallic warbands after both sides maneuvered desparately to overlap one flank. I rolled lucky and killed several legion stands in the initial contact, which had ended up with a single stand overlap for each side, as no one managed a significant advantage on the approach. It was a classic. Ya shoulda seen it. Kim > > Oh, tomorrow (Saturday) I am going to be playing a Johnny Reb American Civil > War scenario. My opponent said he wanted to see what dismounted Union > Cavalry (with repeaters) could do. Should be fun. > > Roger Santagato > santa@anl.gov > > last 3: Zulu type miniatures, DBA, and 18xx From: "Wade, Nick (MN Corporate, Vic)" Subject: RE: DBA >>>>> > I cannot lay my hands on my rules at this moment, but I think this is > wrong. Spears are a combat strength of 4 (5 vs Mtd) and get 1 tactical > factor for a second rank. Pikes are a 3 (4 vs. mtd) and get a +3 > tactical factor for a second rank. Warbands are a 3 vs everybody and > get NO tactical factor for a second rank EXCEPT +1 vs mounted only. > Some Greek armies (particularly the earlier ones) are rated spear not > pike. >>>>>> > [NW] Sp are +4 v. mtd and foot, with an extra +1 for a second rank against each. Warband are +3 v foot and +2 v. mtd, and always get a +1 for the second rank. All the early Greek armies, ie those with hoplites, have spear and not pike. I think the Greeks do not become Pk until Hellenistic Greek around the end of the 4th century BC. >>>>> > Someone mentioned DBM as a superior product, and I must respectfully > disagree. It tries to take a linear approach to a global notion (design > for detail vs design for effect?) and unless you place the extra command > dice in the hands of individuals whose cooperation with you is no better > than that between any two INDIVIDUALS, you have far too much control > over your army. Given routine table chat, even then you have too much > control. Aside from some Roman and Byzantine units, most of these > troops were more herded into battle, or led as mobs, than deployed as > formations. Maneuvering an army in any but the simplest fashion was > virtually impossible. DBA shows this and DBM doesn't. And DBM is > rarely played in a multi-player mode, which takes it even further from > history.>>>> [NW] A couple of points here. DBM is actually often played in multi-player mode - doubles games are particularly popular in UK competitions and for friendlies elsewhere. DBM allows a distinction between irregulars and regulars which DBA doesn't have. This is a big plus for differentiating between "well-drilled" armies and "tribal mobs". Each irregular command has its own PIP die, so there is no better control than for DBA. Indeed, many commands have more than 12 elements (I've seen some Gallic armies with 70 elements in a single command!!), so the control can be even less. Regular armies allow PIP dice to be "swapped" between commands reflecting their improved organisational structure/ability/training. As well as virtually all Roman and Byzantine armies, in this you would include armies such as Macedonian, Spartan, most Chinese, Mongols, Egyptian, Assyrian, and others. (Whether this gives better control than real life is a different issue, and in many cases certainly possible depending upon the number of generals used) [NW] So anyway, I think DBM is far superior to DBA, but we're all entitled to our own views and they are both good fun!! :o) ciao, Nick.