UNITS (ver 1.2) hosted by JT

[Mo]

The polution that the bombs make should be stronger than the normal pollution. I would suggest it lasts for 10 years and then converts to normal pollution. During those 10 years any unit inside of the pollution will get damaged every turn it is inside.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

The reason for having a "unit workshop" - which in ancient/historical times could be called the Armory or Field of Mars - a place where units are put together, is both that there are 100s of variations of historical units and that those variations existed because different civilizations had different requirements for units based on their historical and grographical situation.
In other words, as long as you have Random Maps, someone is going to get stuck in a set of terrain that does not favor his historical unit-type, and the player and his civ are therefore automatically Screwed, Blued, and Tattooed.
Within the limits established by the technology available, a civ should be able to modify/adopt units to adapt to the situation it faces: if I am playing Mongols in a forested, mountainous area, I am not gong to want Unarmored Horse Archers, I want Legions. And if my sociology/politics doesn't allow Legions, then I want the best infantry outfit I can build for that terrain, and not be limited to Phalanx, which (should be) seriously penalized in rough terrain.
SMACs graphic problems do not have to be universal. Let me give some examples of how Workshop and historical units go together:
The starting weapons/units for almost everyone in 4000BC are Archer (the bow was a neolithic invention, if not earlier) and Warrior (armed with thrown or thrust spears or club). They have no armor (leather and fur doesn't give any bonuses!). Graphic icons would be a spearman or bowman in brown fur/leather.
Discover Bronze Working.
Possible Upgrades: Bronze Scale armor, Bronze Shields, Bronze Swords, long bronze-pointed spears.
Changes to Units:
Archer: Can now be armored in bronze: same icon only now he's got a gold/bronze colored torso. You CANNOT give shields to archers, and giving him both a bow and another weapon would be either disallowed or would penalize BOTH weapons.
Warrior: Give him bronze armor, and the torso becomes bronze-colored. He can get a shield, which is an icon change (shield in left hand, round and bronze-colored). The point of his spear can change to bronze.
If he has armor, shield, and long spears, he can be formed into a Phalanx, which adds a Banner behind him (showing a specialized Formation as well as weaponry). Phalanxes have increased defense against mounted units, but decreased factors in terrain like woods, mountains, or hills.
You can build a brand new type of unit: the Swordsman. The icon would be a barbarian-looking type waving a bronze sword over his shoulder, dressed in leather/fur. Add armor and shield, and he turns bronze and adds the shield icon as above.
Armored swordsmen might be limited in that you can only form them if you have a Military Aristocracy in your social forms, but that discussion belongs in another thread.
Discover Iron Working
Possible Upgrades: Iron Mail Armor, Iron Stabbing swords, Iron-pointed Pikes (two handed spears)
Changes to Units:
Archer: Change his torso to iron-gray, with texture, and he's now armored in mail.
Spearman: Change in armor as above.
Phalanx: Upgrade to Pike Phalanx: new icon with figure holding two-handed pike: basic figure shieldless and clothed in leather/fur, but upgrades would include Shield icon, and bronze or iron armor color-texture changes. (NOTE: This represents Alexander's Macedonian Phalanx, it was NOT a Medieval invention)
Swordsman: Iron armor, iron sword (color change).
If your social/political system allows, either Phalanx or Swordsman with iron weapons can Upgrade to Legion - this icon would have a rectangular shield, iron armor and sword, vexillium banner flying overhead.

Now, most of the weapon and armor changes wuld be handled the same way for Mounted Units, but to save space here I'll merely note that by changing color to denote armor/weapons changes, virtually all the ancient infantry units can be accomodated with 5 basic icons plus 2 shield variations.
Using color change to show the differences between, say, Steel Armor, Face-hardened armor, and composite (Chobham) armor, 2 - 3 basic icons could show all the variations of modern tanks and APCs and their Upgrades.
This does not appear excessive to me, either for the player or the programmers...

[crusher]

Slavers should be converted to kidnappers. They can kidnapp leader units or armys not on alert causing disstress in the enemy civ.

------------------
"War does not determine who is right,It determines who is left."
-Crusher-

[Harel]

Diodorus Scilus, what a wonderful summary. As I said, thourthout the ages, armies have been tweeked extensivily, both to fit the terrain and the enemy. I countred the opposition many times, as their dis-agreement seems to follow the same, thoughtless routes.

Here are their points:

* It could create super units - Favorite poster on this is EnochF. He loves he's lawyer in a sub. The problem is, people don't look too far ahead. It won't be a problem to strict the workshop to only allow possible and reasonable unit setting.

* It would be hard to see the difference - Between a sub with infra-red tracking or without said Mo. Who said you could? Who said you should? Can you do that in real life? When you see an enemy sub, can you tell the difference? Beside, it doesnt have the be JUST like smac: they could program a clear unit editor that shows use JUST what you have: see Diodorus post.

* The stat difference is too small - also said Mo. Is the difference between an Axe man to a swordman is big enough? Well ofcourse it is! Duh! Civ is about history, not make belive. A sword can pass better thourth armor, a small AP ability. And yes, there is enough diffence between an F14 to other planes ( see F15 ) - like twice the cost, difference ranges and speed... etc. Even with civ static x/x/x system, the difference is big enough to count.

* I don't like to use it - Well, don't. You can switch it off.

* But then the computer will have an advantge - said NotLikeTea. A good guy, good ideas, but THAT was a bit dumb. Let's see: maybe if you switch it off, the computer can't use it also? Oh, wow, how did I think about that?

The workshop can make everyone happy. I said so allready. Does who don't like it: switch it off. Just say no. Just like random events ( we have that voting in the site ), the majoriry says "optional". Don't like? Don't approve? SWITCH IT OFF. SWITCH IF OFF FOR THE COMPUTER ALSO. EVEN THE GUY NEXTDOOR, IF YOU LIKE.
But I like it, I want it in the game. Why not? WHY NOT? You can have yours, I can have mine...
Let's leave the historical debate, the fun debate, the usefullness debate. Doesn't matter which system is better. You can have them both, and the same time. You can make both sides happy. So why do you still say no? Do you guys must have your way, every time?
Besides, I am sure the workshop will appear, as it did so in SMAC and there is no reason to take it off.

[Mo]

1. Most subs can be distinguished by there size and by the sound of the reactor and of the propulsion.
2. Men with full aromer and the heavist weapons available will still have the same movement as men with no armor and plain swords because the scale of the game is so large as to make the differences unnoticable.
3. Look at midieval weapons(axes, swords, spears, maces...) they all have slightly different strenghts, but they are all generaly of equal strenght. Almost all of them will kill or sevearly injure you if you get hit, even with armor on.
4. If you want to include all of the different weapons and armor throughtout history there will be so many that you'll discover a new weapon right after you have built a new unit with an old one.
5. How would you represent tactics in the workshop. Units like phalanxes their tactics are as important as their weapons and armor. And their tactic won't be aplicable for all other units.
6. How would you create units with two or more weapons.(ex Musketeers were more than guys with only muskets they also had swords) The Alpha Centauri workshop wouldn't allow units to transport troops and have offensive capabilities.(CivII frigates)
I think the unit workshop doesn't fit historical units. There are several problems arising when you try to make historical units using the workshop. I would also make it harder for mod pack designers because they can't draw a new unit since it is comprised of many little parts stuck together. I would suggest the compromise suggested earlier that the unit workshop would come into play later in the game when the game goes into the futur. The unit workshop is such a major part of the game that if it is included the only way to realisticaly switch it off is to just ignore it and use the auto designed units, but the workshop will still be there.

[Jason Beaudoin]

I would like units to function more dynamically than the ones that we've been seeing in other games of this nature.

I know that it has been said before, but I'd like to stress here that it would be great if certain units were more effective against a distinctive type of unit. It would be nice if artilery would be very effective against infantry units, but almost useless against tanks; alternatively, it would be great if an anti-tank artilery piece could hold it's own against a tank.

We've seen that a little in CIV II and SMAC where an infantry unit is more effective against cities. Now it's time to take it a step further.

It would also be nice to expand the active defence principle and the ranged defence. Tactically, it would be great if one could place an infantry unity on the front line, an artilery piece behind it, and an anti-air defence unity behind the artilery piece. The artilery and the AA gun would have a defensive cover of one square all around it, meaning that if a unit beside it is attacked, it will fire upon the unit attacking. I believe that an improved combat system to the game would vasty improve the overall appeal of Civilization.

[EnochF]

The military workshop is a spectacular idea. I think someone should design an entirely new game based on it.

But please keep it out of Civ III.

[Harel]

Well, let answer Mo:
1. did you read what I said? I said you can't tell the difference between a sub with infra-red tracking from one without. You still can't.
2. Maybe change the interface of CIV to bigger maps, so infantry would move a few boxs per turn, allowing for changes in the stats.
3. They still differ. You can add AP to some, others can do bigger damage, some are more accurate.
4. Same things with computers, obselte the moment they come out. you still build them, nien?
5. How about adding formations section, or place it in the special ability section ( tactic: orderly, tactic: legion, tactic: geurrila, etc. ).
6. Ah... hmmm.. thats a toughy. I KNOW! Make the workshop have the options for two weapons? Legions: sword+shield... etc. Now, THAT a brain-storming. Same thing with Frigate ( Man-o-war, btw. Those were the carrier of goods and cannons ), one weapon is transport, the other is cannon. A unit with two weapons get a minus to movement.

About unit-making, I think scilous covered that beautifuly.

BTW, EnochF, I will say this for the last time: want it out of the game? Turn off the option in the rules, that will dis-allow it for you and the comp.

[ember]

I personanly think taht a unit editor is a bad idea for historical units. It will get too complex, every hull will need its own selection of weapons/armour. The only thing, if any, that is editable should be some special abilities.

Have a cruiser, can add a ASW mod (spots subsd, can bombard subs), an AGIES mod (x2 vs air, acitve defends against air), a CRUISE MISSILE mod (+2 range of attack, carries 2 missile units), a HEAVY GUN (+4 att) mod or a NUCLEAR POWER (+2mp). maybe max of two of these.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[DarthVeda]

Instead of the Unit workshop as in SMAC, the traditional approach taken in Civ2 can be used.

Firstly, a new build option would apprear in your city menu if you had units in the city. You could upgrade these units for a minimum cost of 2 rows of shields, plus the absolute value difference of each units cost. (Say upgrade a cruiser to a carrier, 2 rows of shields plus the 8 row difference = 10 cost). Cheaper than building a whole new unit, but not exactly easy. You could do a que build for this, as in "change all my Phalanx in City/My Empire to Marines", in all your cities, the build que would fill with the new upgrades after the current project. Capitalization would be automatically deleted from the build que of course.

Having a unit editor like SMAC would turn Civ 3 into an uneditable (for scenario purposes) piece of crap in the unit departments. Unless of course, the units were 2d sprites instead of this nice-looking, but very annoying 3d shtuff.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

"Musketeers had swords..."
But they were called musketeers, or fusiliers, after their Primary Weapon, Modern infantry carries bayonets and hand grenades, but they are Secondary to their primary weapons, and since this is a Strategic Level game, we can and will ignore all the secondary stuff. The truely multiple-armed ground troop is very rare historically.
As for Sea Transports with combat ability, in fact the current Civ games combine all sea units most unrealistically. The Trireme had no cargo capacity at all, and neither did a Frigate: they werre purely warships. The Cog of late medieval times, a major increase in maritime capability utterly left out of all the current games, was the first ship to combine cargo and combat: it carried up to 200 tons cargo, and had high "castles" fore and aft in which archers and engines could slaughter its foes.
As for the Workshop concept making it impossible for scenario designers, it actually makes it easier to design specific units for you scenarios. You want a scenario based on Tokugawan Japan? Design a foot unit with steel plate armor, steel sword, Elite Morale = Samurai. Add that unit to the various Japanese factions. Add a Mongol player with Horseman plus Iron Armor, Composite Bow, Veteran Morale. Disable/Turn Off the Workshop. Start the game. Play Kublai's invasion, or whatever. Make up variations with Portuguese/Spanish arriving with Musketeers and cannon-armed ships.
You can make up any specific historical unit or Fantasy unit for any scenario with a properly designed Workshop, as opposed to having to fiddle with factors of existing units to get what you want.
If you want very specialized icons/graphics, OF COURSE you will have to paste them in yourself: the game can't provide everything, but it can provide a much better basis for customization than it has now...

[yh30264]

I like the idea of a workshop, which can allow you to upgrade your units and modify your units, for specific requirements.

I think they should be distinguisable from unmodified units as knowing what the capabilities of a unit are, before you attack it, is a key part of the strategy of combat in civII.

I'm aware that you don't know a unit is a veteran but that the difference is only one modification (increased attack/defense strength) These units could have a number of modifications, which you won't know about unless you have a sign (ie different colour).

Like everything with civ3, we are looking at evolution, not revolution... I enjoy playing civ2. I thought I'd enjoy playing ctp... but found that they had changed too much and lost the spirit of the game.

I'm back playing civ2.

regards,

Glenn

[Ecce Homo]

Airships!

They could be used for bombarding, surveillance or luxury passsenger transportation.

[Flavor Dave]

There has been alot of discussion about units losing experience. Bad idea!!! Doing this would tilt the game very heavily toward warmongering, esp. in the modern era. In the ancient era, a phalanx "loses experience" when pikemen become available. And more when you discover gunpowder. OK, so say you have Leo's. Well, you lose vet status, then, don't you?

I want the option to build 10-12 awesome cities, and sit behind my walls making money and discovering techs, without having to worry about my nearly-unbeatable vet. pikeman behind city walls (with an archer to take out any catapults that walk up) losing experience, and becoming very beatable. No, with this change, I'll have to constantly "move the front" by conquering. Of course, the far larger issue comes in modern times, when my vet. rifleman in a coastal fortress will do well even against cruisers.

This sounds like a neat idea, and it is in the very narrow confines of accurately modeling warfare. But when you think of how warfare fits into the whole game concept--BAD IDEA!!!

The MASH unit, which could instantly repair a unit in the field, is a great idea.

[Harel]

Ok, I think I should, once and for all explain how I see the Workshop, or the Tweakshop, the much more suitable name.
This shop is ment to do what SMAC started: allow players much more finer control on thier empires. Same people love to have the old historical units, and nothing more. However, how much control that gives you? How can you choose to shape your nation into something that is yours? Everyone can build knights... you want to stand out. This is what SMAC did, and CIV III will refine this even more.
The tweakshop will be based on the old units, but you could do SMALL changes to them. Those changes will not be as drastic as the SMAC ones: no +100%, +50%, but small and subtle changes. The difference that only a smart emperator can take into he's hands. You can STILL PLAY WITHOUT IT, and even if you play with it, the difference would never be great. Just the ability, which will add fun, finer control and realism. The cost? Nothing. It won't be hard at all to design new units. Just see what I have in mind, and you'll see that it just needs to enter a few more stats then: offence, defence, movement, cost and support. A few.
Here is the design:
* Select chassis:
Infantry
Plane
Helicopter
Subs
Ship
Wheeled
Animals
* Below it, chassis movement:
Infantry will choose things as special movement bonuses over terrain.
Wheeled can be anything from catapult to tanks. Select: Carried, Powered, Chariot, etc.
Animals will choose from the array of animals, as horses, elephents and such.
Ships can be from sails, by steam engines to nuclear powered.
* Armor ( by the chassis type )
* Defence enhancment, below armor.
* Weapon number 1.
* Weapon 1 enhancment ( below it ).
* Weapon number 2.
* Weapon 2 enhancment ( below it ).
The weapons, for infantry, can be swords, spears, shields, etc. For example, the weapon can be sword, the enhancment: sumari sword ( AP, a bit more damage ).
For ships this can be transport.
An air-craft carrier will use transport as weapon, and Plane-decks as enhancment, stating the cargo would be planes.
* Tactics ( select tactics, which gives a bonus to the unit ). Navigation would give extra speed, offensive tactics to offense , etc.
* And special abilities, to everything that was left out.
A catapult would be a wheeled, carried chassis with catapult as main weapon. Simple, no?

This is not hard to implament, and with more fine-tuning this could show the wide array of weapons along history. You didn't just have cavalry, you hard ALL kinds of cavalry.

I like the idea of the unit workshop, however, it was a little tedious in SMAC.

The only problem I have, and I challenge someone to solve it, is once gunpowder comes what is the armor/defense rating based on? Aside from Kevlar, no one has used armor since the conquisadors and yet if you had a group of archers versus a group of marines, the marines would easily win because of their additional firepower, range, and rapidity of fire.

[Harel]

Well, I allready suggested that the new combat model will combine rate of fire and accuracy.
However, the solution is quite simple: a bullet doesn't so, in the end, MUCH more damage then an arrow. However, it IS more accurate and fire faster. I suggest that gunpowder weapons will have a high AP ability ( armor piercing ) with will negate armor.
Kevlar will have a high level of armor rating, plus AA, active armor will reduce offensive weapons AP ability.
Problem solved.

[Mo]

I would rather have a bit toned down version of the unit workshop. You get all the normal units preset. For each unit you have a few modifications you can make. Most of the you wouldn't have to research.
Example:
You discover Steel which allows you to build crusiers.
You can add antiair guns to your cruiser and make it agis cruiser. You can also sacrafice some armor to make the ship faster. Or you can a helicopter landing pad which will allow it to refuel helicopters. These modifications will either have a downside trading armor for movement, or they will increase the cost. Some modifications will have to be researched(ex. anti air guns for crusisers, longbows ...)

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Defense in Gunpowder Times:
Dupuy's "Numbers, Predictions & War" noted that the Dispersion Factor - the amount people sarted spreading out to avoid being a Good Target, increased dramatically throughout history. Specifically, and I sent this off to the Clash of Civ thread, there are 'Singularities" where the Dispersion increases by an Order of Magnitude or more. Here are the Dispersion Factors by period:
Ancient Medieval: 1
Napoleonic Wars (muskets) 20
US Civil War (Rifles) 25
WWI (machineguns) 250
WWII (Tanks, aircraft) 3000

In other words, your musketeers, instead of armor, rely on much thinner formations and making themselves, as an army, less of a target by about 2 x an order of magnitude. With automatic weapons and mobile heavy weapons (WWI and WWII, respectively) this dispersion goes up by another order of magnitude or more with each change of weaponry. Unfortunately for the troops, the massed muskets and more modern weapons do much more damage than arrows: there are accounts of crusaders with 15 arrows sticking in them and their armor and coming back from the battle, while there are no accounts of soldiers with 15 musket balls in them doing anything but working on their bleeding and rigor mortis techniques...

[CormacMacArt]

I have to agree with Mo's idea. Allow "tweeking" of units, not the creation of new units.
"Just turn it off!"

Well, but I would like it for modern/future units. One question: Weren't the Samouri (sp?) relativly few in Japan? I thought they didn't have near the numbers that one Roman Legion had.

The other thing that has not been discussed (or I have missed it) is STEALTH. Now, I eliminated the stealth title on my fighter and bomber, because they were not really stealth; my opponent could see them and shoot them down with relative ease. I think STEALTH should be another flag on the unit, in anticipation of the stealth naval units of the future.

[Flavor Dave]

Cormac--I have a different interpretation of stealth. Hey, the Serbs are able to shoot at stealth planes. They aren't invisible to people, just to radar. This makes them stronger combat weapons. But if the Serbs had stealth planes, we'd know where they are, through spies, satellites, Kosovars, etc.

Now, if you want to make invisibility a future tech, allowing the creation of invisible planes or ships, that's a different thing.

[CormacMacArt]

Yeah, I know that the Serbs can see them (I assume this is only during the day), but I was thinking back to the Gulf War, when the F117 would attack and the Iraqis had NO IDEA where the plane was. Also, Naval units "see" other ships with radar, but what if my battleship (USS New Jersey, of course) had been modified to be stealth? I might be able to sneak past your blockade.

[Mo]

I think there should be 2 types of stealth. Complete stealth, a futur tech which can make any unit invisible. There should be some ways to find them, spy planes, sensor posts... I also think you should see where they are attacking from.
Normal stealth: can only be used on air and naval units. They are invisable, but all other units have a chance to spot and reveal them. I think this chance to stop them should be greater with helicopters and ships since helicopters fly lower than bombers/fighters and ships are at the same level as the other ships.

[Flavor Dave]

On a practical level, they really need to do something to enhance the "Triad."

1. Cruise missiles are too powerful against naval units. Either CMs, specifically, or all units, shouldn't be able to eliminate a stack. I don't mind 2 CMs taking out my battleship, that's the risk of war. I don't like 4 CMs (240, shields, or 144 for the AI at deity) taking out my 2 heavily loaded transports, and two battleships (perhaps 1200 shields or more.) Once cruise missiles come into the game, you can't use your navy against the AI, until you have cranked out a ton of AEGIS'. It's not just unrealistic, it's bad for gameplay.

2. Bombers are a waste of shields, once the AI has flight, cuz he magically has a fighter in just about every city right then. Bombers should either be cheaper, or should have the ability to attack and return. As it is, you just build two or so for special duty, like taking out that pesky MI in a hill fortress. But then, why not build a CM, for less than 1/2 the cost? The bomber is only THEORETICALLY reusable.

3. Helicopters should, too, altho they'd have to lose some power, or they'd be too powerful.

4. Fighters and bombers should have something like 30 mps, as long as they're moving from city to city. As a practical matter, they're needed at the front, where you likely have small or wrecked cities. The cities that can properly build them are so far away it might take 4 turns to do anything with them. It's better to build a howie, and send it by rail.

These 4 changes are really necessary in order to overturn the overdominance of the army, esp. in the modern era. This is one of the biggest, easy-to-solve problems in Civ2.

[Flavor Dave]

My twist on something I've seen suggested before--the Colonist.

He costs 40 shields, and costs like a settler (in food and shields). He goes anywhere outside the city radius, but within X squares (15 on med. world?). Once he's at the colony site, you order him to exploit, and whatever that square produces, goes to the city. Then he improves the land--builds a road, irrigates or mines, etc. The enhanced yield (arrows and food or shields) is transferred to the city. He ends by building a fortress, and then performs his final function--he Converts, into the appropriate military unit--phalanx, or pikeman, or musketeer. Or maybe you just convert it into a Garrison, with 2d, 2a, costing one shield and one food (never two, or else he's not to useful in republic). The unit becomes obsolete at industrialization or communism. Or, maybe at this time, it becomes a minor tribe. It CANNOT found a city. It cannot exploit a square in a city radius, even if that square isn't being used at the time.

This adds to the strategic options. When you have those cities that are all food, or all shields, you have the option to exploit fully what it is, or build a Colonist to make it a more well rounded city. You probably shouldn't allow more than one Colonist for a city until it reaches size 9.

Another adaptation of someone else's genius;-)--the Scout. It's a modern unit, available with combined arms. It can paradrop. It sees two squares. It moves like a partisan. It can pillage. It instantly heals, every time it survives combat (which won't be often, it should be weak, maybe 2a, 4d). It does not cause unhappiness in a democracy, no more than a spy does. It would go together with enhancements to bombers (either cheaper, or able to attack and return) very well.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

"Stealth" exists in several forms in both naval and air units already.
WWII naval ships depended on armor for defense. Modern ships depend on Radar jamming, decoys, and basically being hard to target rather than trying to survive a direct hit. That's why even the smallest warships these days have their own helicopter or drone aircraft: they're used to put up false imagry, jamming chaff, infrared sources to decoy missile trackers, etc. - all forms of Naval Stealth. That's your real current defense against the Cruise Missile for non-AEGIS ships.
Similar with aircraft: Stealth is relative, and the real defense is the combination of satellite, AWACS, and other surveillance and counter-surveillance systems that work together: for every strike aircraft there are a dozen other aircraft covering him physically or electronically: the 'Stealth' craft just need less separate cover.
Not as technically sophisticated, but in the US Army even 20 years ago we already had infrared-absorbing paint on tanks, the Soviets were 'cooling' tank exhausts to foil infrared detection, camouflage nets were made with 'anti-radar' pigments and materials: in any kind of half-covered terrain, it is still very, very difficult to target a ground force that knows how to hide.
Stealth technology should be related to earlier Advances like Camouflage (a WWI French advance) and Maskirovka (the Soviet set of techniques for faking and hiding military capabilities). The three could make a Heirarchy of defensive capabilities, something like this:
Camouflage: Each stack appears as a single unit to the enemy
Maskirovka: Units and Stacks only appear to the enemy if his ground or air unit is or passes next to them.
Stealth: Allows you to build air, sea, and ground units with X % greater Defense Factor against any air attack (playtest to determine what's appropriate: my gut feeling is something between 10% and 33%)

[primetime000]

crusher, i would just like to know where you got that quote from.

[JT]

THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED THREAD CLOSED