• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #85: Decadence and Ascension Path Changes

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today's dev diary is the last dev diary for the 1.8 'Čapek' update, and will be going over the introduction of Awakened Empire Decadence and some changes coming to the three Ascension Paths and Megastructures. Decadence is a free feature in the 1.8 update, while the Ascension Path and Megastructure changes require the Utopia expansion.

Awakened Empire Decadence
Awakened Empires were added to the game as a way of throwing a new challenge at the player in the late-game. They are intended to be formidable foes, and only the absolutely most powerful player empires are meant to be able to take them on alone. However, this could lead to an unintended game state where the Awakened Empire had conquered or subjugated all regular empires and effectively 'won', with the player being stuck as an AE subject until the end of time. In order to address this, we've added a new mechanic called Decadence for Awakened Empires. Decadence is effectively a meter, going from 0 to 100, that starts filling up for Awakened Empires once a certain amount of time has passed since awakening. The larger they are (both in terms of owned planets and subjugated empires), the faster it builds up. Decadence reduces Awakened Empire resource income and fleet power, and also increases the rebelliousness of their subjects, and has very large penalties at high levels of Decadence. What this means it that while an Awakened Empire might start very strong, and grow even stronger as they expand, that very expansion will eventually turn into decline, until they're weakened to the point where the rest of the galaxy can rebel and overthrow them - if you end up their subject, you just have to be patient, build up your forces, and wait for the right moment to take back your freedom. Awakened Empires have also been changed so that they prefer to subjugate other empires (though still taking some planets as well) to conquering them outright, so there should always be a collection of subjects chafing under the precursor yoke and biding their time.
2017_09_07_1.png


Ascension Path Changes
One of the most loved features in Utopia is the Ascension Paths - the ability to choose an 'end goal' for your empire and species in the form of Psionic, Synthetic or Biological Ascension. However, the decision to restrict the Psionic and Synthetic paths based on ethics was less popular, and though I think the reasoning for it is sound (making ethics more diverse), this is a case where I think there is a valid case to say that balance should take a step back in favor of letting the player decide the path or their own empire. For this reason, we've lifted the Spiritualist-only restriction on psionics and have opened up for Spiritualists to research robotics and synthetically ascend. We have also removed the Materialist-only restriction on AI Citizen Rights.

To compensate for this loss, Spiritualists have received a buff in the form of stronger Temples, and Materialists have been given a new living standard called 'Academic Privilege' that boosts happiness and research output at the cost of more consumer goods. However, though we've lifted the hard restriction, the impact of the ascension paths on ethics attraction and faction happiness remain. This means that, for example, a Spiritualist empire that decides to Synthetically Ascend will have significant troubles with unhappy factions and materialist ethics drift, and similarly, the pursuit of Psionics will cause increased Spiritualist attraction and the likely creation of a strong Spiritualist faction.

In addition to these more general changes, there's a few more path-specific changes and additions:
Psionic: Buffed traits and Psi Corps building, and added an alert to tell you when the Shroud is ready for use. Additionally, psionically awakening other species in your empire now happens more often.
Synthetic: Added the ability to assimilate new biological pops into synthetic bodies, and the addition of robomodding significantly buffs this path. Synthetic and Cyborg leader traits were nerfed a bit to compensate.
Biological: Increased the total trait points by 1, and reduced the cost of advanced traits such as Robust.
2017_09_07_2.png


Megastructure Changes
The headline feature of Utopia was the Megastructures, massive constructions requiring tens of thousands of minerals and decades to construct. A frequent criticism we have received for the Megastructures is that they simply do not feel significant enough, with comments on how the Dyson Sphere should realistically be producing millions of energy, and so on. We've made some changes in 1.8 that we hope will address some of these complaints, though I want to preface this by saying that Megastructures are not and will never be 'realistic', nor is Stellaris meant to be a realistic game in the first place. However, they are meant to feel impressive and special, and when a handful of Habitats with solar power processors can match a Dyson Sphere in output, that impressiveness tends to fade, no matter whether it's actually balanced or not.

For this reason, we have decided to make a change to the Dyson Sphere and Science Nexus. Both of these Megastructures have been majorly buffed, with a finished Dyson Sphere now producing 1000 energy and a fully upgraded Science Nexus outputting a total of ~750 science. However, they have been changed so that each empire can now only build one of each, similar to the Sentry Array. This means that they can be very powerful without having to massively increase the build time or cost to prevent them from simply being spammed. Ringworlds have not been changed, and can be built in any number you want, indirectly buffing the effectiveness of the Circle of Life perk.

Additionally, we've made a tweak to the Master Builders perk. This perk, when taken, will now give you the Mega-Engineering technology if you do not already have it, similar to how World Shaper gives Atmospheric Manipulation and Mastery of Nature gives blocker techs. This allows for reliable access to Mega-Engineering for empires that want to focus on Megastructure construction.
2017_09_07_3.png


That's all for today! Next week we'll post the full patch notes for 1.8 and Synthetic Dawn. See you then!
 
Last edited:
A silo? For storage?
Uh...I don't think I've ever built a single one of those in any of my playthroughs.
I never use them in my games either.

Anyway: To avoid further forum tandrums, I'll let this be the last piece of "insider info" for now.
You'll get all the info with the next dev diary anyway.
 
@Wiz

I love most of the changes and expanded features of this update! Machine Empires already feel more rounded and fleshed out then the normal HiveMind - with their Machine World Terraforming - the additional art stuff for Robomodding and their unique and sometimes really hilarious features! (Mandatory Pampering - One just cannot stop saying it. xD)

I have some critique as well though - hopefully it is constructive! Before I start I want to say that I personally think that you guys are aware of most of these issues. From my own experience I know that it isn't that hard to come up with good/better solutions for something - but making them work while staying economical with your timetable is where it is at. Please do not take any critisim of mine as if I am trying to do a better job or whatever. Instead I try to phrase my concerns and in an attempt to voice and give reasons to thoughts and feelings - so that in the future it might be easier for everyone to discuss those things and formulate them in a concise manner. Now, on to the critique:

The changes to Megastructures:

What I do like and Why:

1. Only being able to build a limited number of them makes those structures more unique, more valueable and more satisfactionary to build/own them. It also makes the 'one megastructure at a time' limit less stiffling. Those two mechanics seem to interconnect a lot better and give a more cohesive feel now.

2. The increased output - especially compared to habitats - is very much appreciated. Not only because you increased a number by 2.5 - but I also like the psychological impact of this. Even before this change Dyson Spheres were good(ish) - but only in a certain niche. Mainly when trying to minimize the research penality for number of pops and colonized planets. Planets could focus on mining - habitats on research and energy comes from dyson spheres. This made your empire highly specialized and efficient.
Sadly this benefit is hidden behind the interconnection of mulitple game mechanics - and thus not really transparent to a lot of players. Increasing the output value to a number like 1000 makes the worth of such a structure more obivious - even more obvious then the pure number might suggest in the first place.
This is a good thing. I will touch on this change again - it also has drawbacks.

3. Removal of RNG regarding MegaEngineering: This ties in a bit about RNG in general - and I think to make it clear why I approve of this change I should go into a bit more detail about my thoughts on this topic. RNG and its nature on gamedesign will pop up pretty often as is.

RNG can be a great tool to add replayability and variance to a game. The starmap creation of Stellaris is good example as would be the random levels in the many Rogue-likes or the modular levels of a game like Diablo 2. This is neat. RNG though also has a lot of negative connotations - bad starts in Stellaris, stupid itemization in Diablo 3, random stuns/status effects/crits in mobas etc. We all know those examples I think.

It is important though to define the deviding line between good RNG and bad RNG: In my opinion gamedesign always takes a turn for the worse if RNG is introduced between player effort and player reward expectations. Examples are numerous: In a moba it might be that a player uses an ability and it misses based on a passive XY% dodge chance of the enemy. This feels bad. Or after hours of farming for an specific Item in Diablo 3 it has rolled with the worst possible stats. Or - in the case of Stellaris: Trying to go for a very tall empire with Megastructures early-on etc and the Megaengineering will just not pop. Those binary RNG chokepoints - you either get what you need or you do not - are IMO bad design.

Being able to opt into removing the RNG via ascension perk was a great choice. Especially since the perk is something a tall empire would want to have anyway.

(4. On a simliar note as the point before: I really like the changes to starting planet climates - They enable one to mitigate bad start RNG to an extent. If one wants a mineral heavy start and utelize an industrious/very strong race - one can also choose the corresponding starting planet. (that minerals might be more important then energy or food is an - while related - seperate topic) There might still be bad RNG waiting for one later in the game with the sourrounding systems - but thats not a binary chokepoint anymore. At this point the player has options to deal with things (war - trade - diplomacy - going for habitats etc) and the RNG here feels more like being part of the challange the game provides. It feels like agency is in the hand of the player, one isn't reliant on a lucky roll.)

What I do not like and Why:

1. The restriction to build only one of each of the Megastructures (sans ringworlds - but to be fair they are on a different ascension perk too). Wait! What? One might ask here - didn't I just state that I like them being restricted? Well, yes.

Let me explain: Stellaris lives a lot from the ability/fantasy to create one owns star empire - formed by what you think it ought to be. (Some people form it by what their fantasy is - other powergame the hell out of things - others again just use whatever they find in the game and have a more freeflow approach.) Going for heavy science/tall builds is one of those fantasies. What happens though if you make certain things like Megastructures One-Per-Empire is that they become less desirable of an goal - especially for tall players. Because while they might be the first to build one such structure - they are done with their whole fantasy/identity at this point. Even worse: Other empires without an focus on that will catch up easily to them since the ceiling is so low - just one structure each after all. (A repeatable tech after finishing the first structures to build additional ones might be an solution?)

That the restriction will almost certainly be circumvented with vassalizing systems to build new ones and integrating vassals back in - or similiar shenanigans (and people here already talking about it) doesn't help - though it is rather a symptom then the main issue.

2. This ties into the increased output positive point above - while also tieing into the negative point above: Dyson Spheres were great if one specialised their empire: planets for minerals, habitats for science and dyson spheres for energy. With the increased output this strength is in theory amplified - though also crippled due to the restriction on the number of dyson spheres. Before Dyson Spheres were not really all that good to begin with - but they had their niche in optimizing an empires available tile space. Now, while their initial use might be higher - they do not provide much longterm benefit - they do not add any depth to the underlying game mechanic - since their benefit is just their big chunk of initial output.


The changes to Ascension-Ethic-(de)restriction:

I personally do like and do not like this change - I did enjoy the more unique nature and the specialisation of empires down the line. Others have said so before but to me too this is a step back towards more uniform empires that might feel more same-ish then they do currently.

However, the interesting part is not so much my personal opinion but the why and the reason behind sentiments.

I have a hard time believing people actually like same-ish empires with less distinguishing features. I tend to think that actually the opposite is the case. Players want to have really special empires - they want to be special precious snowflakes ;) (if I am allowed to poke a bit of fun at myself here).

I think the desire to be able to be materialistic and pursue psionics (for example) is actually born out of that desire. It is this aspect that if they could/can do this they have something which is very unique and/or noteworthy. (maybe hard to manage or to play - but hey! Thats their decision) Also a factor might be the restrictions that are implied with the ethic-ascension restrictions. Like a likelyhood for less of an science focus on psionic-pursuers. (no materialistic boni - no fanatic materialistic edict)

And thats the part that I like- the change to be able to be materialistic and pursue psionics is now open - and is able to satisfy that fantasy of an empire that delves heavily into science in an effort to unlock/understand psionics. Thats cool - I like those implied narratives.

I think though that removing those restrictions was the quick and dirty way to accomplish that - with negative side effects like the more same-ish empires. I am unsure though how to go about things without touching a lot more systems - from propulsion changes to galaxy creation over to combat and diplomacy. This fitting of big ideas/concepts into smaller releaseable packages must be a real struggle. You guys at Paradox do a really great job!

What I like to see on a bit of an tangent is a bit of an expansion on the ascension paths themself: My personal dream would be ascension specific shiptypes with unique roles. We already sorta have ground troops like that (though ground combat is a bit lackluster on its own right now) - and ships that encompass the ascensions would be really neat. High dodge, high damage small shipts for psionic ascensions (think XL weapon slot on a corvette - the fantasy would be the jedi/eldar type pilot with a big gun - drawing the energy for the weapon from the shroud itself), big carrier ships with autocreating/re-spawning attack craft (staying out of range and sending in an endless swarm of figher/bombers) for bio ascencions and really big titan-deathstar ships for the synth ascension... ANYHOW. I got a big carried away here, sorry.

The Introduction of Decadence:

A new mechnic which allivates stale game-states. I cannot think of a reason why this could be bad? It obviously hinges a lot on the implementation and how it feels like in the game - some number tuning might propably be done at one point or another- but overall. Yeah. I like that.

Energy grids in habitats confirmed? :eek:

You could already build the spiral-power hub from the Event Horizon Questline in habitats. Energy Grids now is not such a big thing tbh. If anything it just gives a bit of insight - that the structors for the habitats were designed/made in a bit of their own box/team/sprint and that now they receive a bit of polish while the team is touching AscencionPerks and Megastructures again. I think overall thats cool; but not that much of a big deal. :)
 
Hm, now that galactic wonders are all a one-of thing, the ascension perk does seem a bit lackluster. Would it be possible/feasible/balanced to have that perk also spawn one deposit of living metal somewhere in your empire and give the research option for it? So that the perk isn't entirely wasted once the wonders have been built.
 
A lot of this can be addressed by creating events that trigger for your empire based not only on ethics but on certain traits, and also by adjusting tech-weights based on certain traits. Certain trait types should also produce certain types of leaders. For Example:

Talented Pops: Increases tech-weights towards 'Leadership' buildings (planetary capitals, military academies, etc.) , as well as techs that increase leadership levels and efficiency (Those that don't have to do with genetics). Events may trigger when you have certain buildings that produce more leaders (your military academies may grant you a chance to produce free generals or admirals, for example).

I think the goal with the dev team is to move away from flat numbers-based rewards, and I think small things like that will improve the game, and that's the kind of thing that needs to be modded in or added over time.

I'm going to completely ignore the primary species assumption in your techs and go on.
The problem is the game is numbers and numbers are what we can see, I don't see that if my primary race is talented that i get a 1.5x multiplier to my chance to draw leadership based techs, so I won't even think about it. Traits need to provide feedback to the players about what they do, while events and tech weights are hidden information.
 
What is the reasoning behind this one? Ring worlds are definitely inferior both in mineral and temporal efficiency to habitats, why can't they get some sort of a redeeming feature? I know you'll bring up the science and unity debuff advantage, but they are addictive and when you are well into the late game the addition of an extra 10% become less noticeable, so 8 habitats compared to one complete ring do not differ by much to be a deciding factor.

Disagree cause of 4 STARPORTS :)))
 
A silo? For storage?
Uh...I don't think I've ever built a single one of those in any of my playthroughs.
the problem with silo is that if you put them in the sectors lose utility, hoped to be solved, I do not find the overpowering ability to accumulate resources if you have space.

Another possibility would be for planets to automatically increase stockspace without the appropriate building, but this could fuel the snowball.... nevertheless it would be correct: as always in this game every new interesting idea that would increase immerrsion and depth finds a limit on missing mechanics, snowball should be limited by administrative costs in terms of stability, resources and time. in the absence of this you have to circumvent the problem with limits that ruin the playability, like this one
 
I am interested to know how would the decadence affect War in Heaven. Because currently siding with AE is already a bad option for player almost 100% of the time. AE is just not capable of winning a WiH completely.
Unless there is special some counter measure or huge WiH balance change, this supposed end game event is probably going to be a joke where you can just sit aside and watch the AI run their empires to the ground.
 
I was entirely calm for pretty much two years. And you guys were ignoring any and all feedback of any kind. Now once again you are pretty much doing something completely unecessary and unasked for. While happily ignoring glaring issues. The only response one gets are usually flippant such as this one or outright silence.

One can put exactly into words why bio ascension is bad and why the changes you introduce wont save it. One can run the numbers up using a frigging calculator and write them down in a spreedshet. You guys are going to entirely ignore it.

Then you go and hit something with a hammer that does not need nor deserve it. In this case you are basically keen on killing habitats for good. Ignoring all their downsides as you turn them into worse 12 tile planets that are exceedingly expensive. By introducing a second nerf to solar collectors.


This is like Wiz being angry that people split their three starting corvettes and use them to scout. Something nobody but him is bothered by. That has been done since the game was released and has good reasons. Now he seems hell bend on "fixing it".

You can mod away these problems quite easily. There are lots of mods buffing habitats and genetics on the workshop.
 
Let's say we take out empire customization, and we create 8 premade "playstyles" but you can slap graphics on them.
Let's name them after the ethics.

Is there enough content to differentiate them? Definitely

Not cut up those 8 premade empires into itty bits like race traits, ethics, civics, traditions, ascensions etc.

Is there enough content? Nope.
Why? Because every choice got smaller and smaller as you added more. Each choice gets less and less distinct. % bonuses alone can create unique identities if they are rare and large enough.

This is also a fairily valid counterpoint, and I fundamentally agree with it. It is not only a question of different mechanics, but also a question of heavy percenteages, with huge bonuses and drawbacks. The only civics that comes to mind that follows this philosophy are the fanatic purifiers VS inward perfection, and its machince / hivemind counterparts. The rest are mostly small incremental changes, with nothing too dramatic (save for ascensions and of course the brand new megastructures!).

I really like one Sid Meier's quote: "A game is nothing but a series of interesting decisions". If the decisions are unbalanced on their options (Ex: choose between +3% food VS +15% fire rate), or if they are minor in their effects (Ex: choose between +5% science VS +5% energy output), instead of huge in effects (Ex: Choose beteen +20% science -15% energy VS +30% energy VS -10% science), they stop being interesting and become inconsequential. Mundane. Generally talking, I feel that game developers in general are too much concerned nowadays about "overpowering" rather than "overnerfing", perhaps due to the recent focus on multiplayer development. While both things are unbalanced and undesirable, the first one offers far more significance to the player's actions than the latter, which disminshes them.
 
I think though that removing those restrictions was the quick and dirty way to accomplish that - with negative side effects like the more same-ish empires. I am unsure though how to go about things without touching a lot more systems - from propulsion changes to galaxy creation over to combat and diplomacy.
I'd argue (and in fact did argue back when Ascension was added) that the "quick and dirty way" was tying psionics to Spiritualism in the first place.

Synth Ascension had to be mirrored, and just like this was a Materialist extension from the cyber mechanic already in the game, psionics were the only major thing that could be given a Spiritualist spin, so that's what happened. Even if, perhaps unlike synths, it also made sense for a lot of other empires. It probably did not help that Wiz himself fueled expectation of a non-Spiritualist take on psionics when he tweeted that Babylon 5 reference about the psi corps.

Spiritualists just need something that is actually and exclusively spiritualist in nature. Personally, I'd love to see PDX add a system for tracking and expanding (or suppressing) religious beliefs to the game. It could allow for some interesting diplomatic effects (Space Pope? Butlerian Jihad?) on top of its role as part of a Spiritualist empire's identity. :)

If the decisions are unbalanced on their options (Ex: choose between +3% food VS +15% fire rate), or if they are minor in their effects (Ex: choose between +5% science VS +5% energy output), instead of huge in effects (Ex: Choose beteen +20% science -15% energy VS +30% energy VS -10% science), they stop being interesting and become inconsequential.
I feel like this is really a matter of perception. To me, the names and descriptions of the Civics alone add a lot more to an empire's identity than the actual percentage bonus. The latter is just a number that helps represent something, but by itself it doesn't tickle my imagination. The description does. It adds to the puzzle that is my overall image of an entire culture. :)

But perhaps rather than increasing the bonuses, there should be more Ethos-specific events and choices that pop up only for qualifying empires? There's already a few of them in the game (the heretic cult springs to mind), but certainly this could be expanded upon, and I'm sure it could support and strengthen the player's idea of what their civilization should look and feel like. Have Militarists do more exercises on rival empires' borders. Have Authoritarians crack down on dissenters among the populace. Pogroms for Xenophobes. And so on. Ideally they could be tied to Civics rather than Ethos, but it would surely be a lot of work to come up with so many events ...

Apart from these things hopefully fitting much better to their respective Ethos, it would also be the difference between preventing something, and offering something in addition. The latter is, of course, much more palatable to all players.

Also, if we're really talking about empire sameness, let's not forget Traditions. This system's major flaw is that, right now, every single Tradition is available to every single empire. Curiously, Unity can be generated in unique, empire-specific ways, but it doesn't matter as it all unlocks everything anyways.

Fortunately, Traditions will in 1.8 be tailored more to individual empires by changing a few trees, and I hope for this rework to be quite extensive. I think I would still prefer if the trees would have separate currencies, so that to unlock a Tradition you'd have to do it only by actions that actually tie into its Ethos (after all, we already have a system in place to track these!), but this is undoubtedly a good step forward that could also make our civilizations feel more distinct from one another.
 
Last edited:
I have yet to see an answer to the question about multiple megastructures from repairing the broken ones and/or conquering other species that have built them. What happens in the following scenarios:

1) You have built your Dyson Sphere/Science Nexus/Sentry Array and find a broken one. Can you repair it? Do you get to keep it? Scrap it?
2) You've repaired a Dyson Sphere/Science Nexus/Sentry Array you found while exploring the galaxy and unlock the Ascension perk to build them afterwards. Can you build a new one? Do the repaired one count towards your max limit?
3) You conquer an empire that has a Dyson Sphere/Science Nexus/Sentry Array, and you have already built one of the same yourself. Do you get to keep both? Does one get destroyed/broken/scrapped?

Thanks in advance for answering.
 
I'd argue (and in fact did argue back when Ascension was added) that the "quick and dirty way" was tying psionics to Spiritualism in the first place.

Synth Ascension had to be mirrored, and just like this was a Materialist extension from the cyber mechanic already in the game, psionics were the only major thing that could be given a Spiritualist spin, so that's what happened. Even if, perhaps unlike synths, it also made sense for a lot of other empires. It probably did not help that Wiz himself fueled expectation of a non-Spiritualist take on psionics when he tweeted that Babylon 5 reference about the psi corps.

Spiritualists just need something that is actually and exclusively spiritualist in nature. Personally, I'd love to see PDX add a system for tracking and expanding (or suppressing) religious beliefs to the game. It could allow for some interesting diplomatic effects (Space Pope? Butlerian Jihad?) on top of its role as part of a Spiritualist empire's identity. :)

Your argument is really sound! I like what you are saying a lot.
I got a bit locked onto the track that each ascensions needs its own technological thing - since resourceoutput and ships are the only real gameplay right now (warfare such as is and building an empire respectivly). But yeah - if there were more gameplaymechanics such as religion and whatnot it would be way better to have the ethics tie into those mechanics with different strengths and weaknesses.

Thank you for pointing that out!
 
Most important question of all... Will this DLC finally add the ability to scroll without a scroll wheel, with oh I don't know PgUp and PgDn? I'll even pay for such a privilege, I'm just tired of having to auto hotkey it! Hell if we could finally have a Paradox Game where you can rebind all the hotkeys that would be swell!

Sorry just had to get that off my chest, good work on the planned update so far, looks like it'll be an interesting one :D
 
I have yet to see an answer to the question about multiple megastructures from repairing the broken ones and/or conquering other species that have built them. What happens in the following scenarios:

1) You have built your Dyson Sphere/Science Nexus/Sentry Array and find a broken one. Can you repair it? Do you get to keep it? Scrap it?
2) You've repaired a Dyson Sphere/Science Nexus/Sentry Array you found while exploring the galaxy and unlock the Ascension perk to build them afterwards. Can you build a new one? Do the repaired one count towards your max limit?
3) You conquer an empire that has a Dyson Sphere/Science Nexus/Sentry Array, and you have already built one of the same yourself. Do you get to keep both? Does one get destroyed/broken/scrapped?

Thanks in advance for answering.
This is largely covered in the Synthetic Dawn Feature Stream, from about 50 minutes in. Basically, there's no mechanism preventing you completing a sphere, creating a vassal to "take care of" that sphere, completing another sphere for yourself, then conquering/re-integrating the vassal so you now have two spheres. So, yes, it's quite possible to have multiple DS/SN/SA structures (not sure why you'd ever want multiple arrays). No idea about repairing though as that wasn't explicitly covered.
 
Eh.. I was probably more fine with them being somewhat less effective than the idea of "you can only build one...because reasons?". It seems like such an arbitrary, "because we said so" limit and I don't like the idea of something like that being in the game as a matter of concept.
 
I like the inclusion of decadence to gradually weaken fallen empires until a potential collapse or uprising. I also like the change to soft restrictions instead of the hard ones, with penalties form the population. Always a good idea in a game as broad and open ended as this, with no 'one way' to play it.
Bravo Zulu.