A Prodigal's return: FOG v DBMM...

[ChrisTofalos]

I'm now into my third or so month of playing FOG-AM after a complete break from wargaming for over fifteen years. Ancients has always been my favourite period. I've always been a competitive player, entering the old nationals on twelve occasions, and as many club comps as I could. Previously, I've never used any rules other than WRG (starting with 3rd Edition in 1972).

However, whilst I enjoyed the odd game with DBA, I was never really convinced by the step up to DBM. Scaling things up by allowing every single army base to act independently is so far from realistic it calls into doubt the amount of research that was actually done (by an organisation with Research in its title). Why on earth weren't units of troops re-introduced?

Competitive play does bring out the very worst in some people (and I've had my own particular daft moments!). The number of times I witnessed a single element weaving its way to the rear of an army (ignoring the blatant threats that this involved) to not attack but to 'conveniently' place itself behind an enemy base, so a simple push back results in instant death, really irritated me.

I can't think of a single historical instance where a 'suicide squad' worked its way through a pitched battle to help eliminate a similar sized group of enemy (I'm talking about attempts to knock out ordinary troops, not attempts on the enemy commander's life, which certainly did occur, though usually by breaking through the main battle line, not taking circuitous routs round the back).

In the end I'd had enough of the gamesmanship, sold all my armies and settled down to some absorbing PC strategy games (until the game creators got carried away with the graphics and lost sight of the playability factor).

Anyway, around twelve months ago my interest in wargaming finally returned. My second son, Nick, had periodically invited me to play an occasional WW2 skirmishes and, eventually, my thoughts turned back to ancients. But it wasn't going to be with DBM (or DBMM).

I'd heard some good reports about FOG. Apparently, the best players use them! After a bit of research I bought a set, some army books and started playing a few games with some neat little wooden blocks a friend had produced. Taking the bull by the horns, I promptly entered Warfare 2014 at Reading, giving myself around two months to paint up a Classical Indian army, whilst simultaneously rehearsing three times a week for a part in a play at a local theatre. This ran for eight nights, ending just six days before the first day of Warfare. I almost bit off more than I could chew!

So what have I learned about FOG-AM? Well, generally, I'm very pleased. Playing with whole units again is much more satisfying and, so far, I've not seen much in the way of gamesmanship. And welcome back evades! Some battle reports I've read do feature some odd moves, aimed at causing problems for the enemy when conforming. But, overall, there seems to be more of an effort put into realistically manoeuvring troops into advantageous positions, rather than exploiting loopholes in the rules.

However, I do have a few gripes (who doesn't?!). In around half the battles I have fought (including one with the very similar FOG-R) there have been situations where troops crash into each other and then, well, nothing happens for the remainder of the battle (even when one side has slightly better troops). One side wins the melee (or impact) but the other side passes the cohesion test. A similar thing happens in the following moves, and so on – and nothing moves. Frankly, it's a bit boring.

Whatever happened to push backs, present in every single set of rules I've previously used? In fact, without push backs it's impossible to simulate what happened in some real battles? Would Hannibal have formed his centre in crescent formation at Cannae (with the objective of gradually giving ground to the Roman centre and gain time for his wings to complete the encirclement) if his troops couldn't be pushed back (without involving a rout)? Slogging it out on the spot without the slightest movement, until one side breaks is, IMHO, a touch unrealistic.


It can hardly be an insurmountable problem to overcome. What about a BG being forced back one base depth if it loses a melee and suffers 1 hit per 3 bases (and, dare I say it, even routing if it suffers twice as many and receives 1 hit per 2 bases)? Un-engaged friends behind would give ground as they do with conforming, and if they can't (or the troops behind are enemy – though this is far less likely in our non-DBMM firework display BG age!) then the files that are blocked become disordered (not the whole unit).

Add in a + POA when pushing an enemy back and I think we'd have a bit more excitement – and realism.


The other problem I have is with generals (commanders). They flit around the battlefield like there's no tomorrow, often moving twice in a turn. If historical generals had acted in the same way they'd have required teams of spare horses for their Pony Express-like travels! I've read plenty of accounts of ancient battles but don't recall any where generals acted like this.

What on earth are the unit (BG) commanders doing? If a BG gets disrupted are the officers commanding it incapable of restoring order? I think not. Of course, there are situations when generals had to intervene, but having them flying around for the whole battle is micro-management gone bonkers. In the case of disruption at least (and maybe even fragmentation) then there shouldn't be any need for a general to be present to restore order.

All the above said, I do like the Fog rules and general principles. I can't wait to learn how to handle my Indians properly. Perhaps I'll be able to give someone a half decent game then!

Sensible comments gratefully received…

Chris

[MDH]

Your past history/experience with ancients pretty much mirrors my own. WRG for many years since 1972 ( but excluding 7th ed) then not keen on on DBA/DBM and now into FOG(AM) . Like you perhaps, not a tournament player.

A friend who also returned to gaming recently with much the same history commented on FOG(AM) that while it gave a good game he was less convinced about it as a simulation- the free moving battle groups was certainly one of the aspects he commented on negatively .

I am not sure about the long fights with no quick outcome point as a failing, as I think that was to an extent what you might expect when you got two fairly similar battle lines colliding- a long slog. I tend to fight historic or at least reasonably contemporary opponents and that helps to reduce some of the oddities. And I do think there are niche periods that widely drawn ancient and medieval rules have consistently failed to model satisfactorily, or at least convincingly, and they tend to be the same ones.

There is a core problem/issue/design aspect (call it what you will ) which is that what a base and so a battle group represents is highly flexible in these rules. That makes it quite hard to model in a standard game known formations consistently like those of the legion in three ranks ,or lines, of cohorts, with intervals or a massive pike phalanx rather then touching bunches of semi independent phalanxes. Depths can become pretty theoretical. But for a great many armies these kinds of grand tactical formation issues don't arise , so I understand why in a set covering over 4 millennia you do it this way. To do otherwise is not very practical.

This is what creates the command control problem. If you are not clear about what a legion etc is you are not clear which is a legate and the three classifications inspired, field and troop are a bit thin and don't really relate much to the span of command as such other than in pretty basic terms. There are no fixed sub commands . There is no command control as such and battle groups can pretty much move put of commend reach at will.

I have determined that before doing any more W European medieval battles I will devise a model based on vanguard mainward and rearward ( plus reserve as an option) with fixed commanders for each and often fixed sub commanders within those -eg for Wars of the Roses where you want those to cover the contingents of individual Lords within a wing. Then look at the role of the King's standard maybe. In other words customise army structures and command control for a specific era and geography.

All that said there are a great many good things in these rules in my view and I have had a lot of very enjoyable games so hope you do too.

[grahambriggs]

Hello Chris, glad to see you back on the scene. I played WRG 4th-6th, DBM and now FOG, the latter two a lot.

DBM suffered somewhat in that the author designed it as a game for gentlemen, and when it was pointed out what competition palyers were doing, and some fixes were suggested he kind of dismissed it as he was not keen on competition players. But it was 80%+ a good game.

In terms of FOG yes Cannae is difficult under FOG without having recoils - I think the authors were of the opinion that recoils are a bit of a wargamers myth. You can sort of do the cannae manouver but you have to trun your troops round and move than back; or let them fight and break (I think 10000 Romans managed to cut throught the centre if I recall correctly).

I don't think the generals in FOG are particularly realistic - they're a bit more like chess pieces really. To a degree, it's good to have one on each wing, one in the middle and one to do the emergency "oops deployed these a bit wrong" fire fighting. I like the way that they can double move battle lines - that feels right but yes they tend to skitter about a bit too much. Also, they're all much of a muchness. You get the posh one (IC) who for some reason is good if you're being shot at. The cheap one (TC) who seems to spend all his time fighting in the front rank. In fact I think DBM generals, who each needed a command, worked perhaps a little better.

Since each and every game has generals, it might have been nice to have a bit more variety to reflect a bit more history. e.g. Hannibal could be expensive but never loses control of shock troops and gets a special "fall back 2MU" move for his foot or such like. Or you could have Darius having to take his own morale check if he gets caught up in a combat.

I don't particularly recognise the 'units collide then nothing happens for a long time" concern. You can get this I suppose with small 4 base units of cavalry say fighting each other. But generally I haven't seen this happen. I think when you see your elephants hit infantry you'll find it's "win quick or die quick".

[ravenflight]

A quick word on Generals:

I don't get too hung up on it. Is an IC one guy on horseback, or a Napoleonesque good level of command structure thT means that when a commander says to do something, it is carried out quickly and efficiently.

Possibly it's both. In one instance it's Hannibal doing his thing as one man, in another it's a General with a command span due to good management.

Also, movement is quite reasonable IMHO. Possibly his airborne observer knowing where he needs to be is a problem, but the physical distance an unformed mob could move on horseback. It's pretty amazing. Especially given they WOULD probably have several remounts.

[MDH]

A quick word on Generals:

I don't get too hung up on it. Is an IC one guy on horseback, or a Napoleonesque good level of command structure thT means that when a commander says to do something, it is carried out quickly and efficiently.

Possibly it's both. In one instance it's Hannibal doing his thing as one man, in another it's a General with a command span due to good management.

Also, movement is quite reasonable IMHO. Possibly his airborne observer knowing where he needs to be is a problem, but the physical distance an unformed mob could move on horseback. It's pretty amazing. Especially given they WOULD probably have several remounts.

Not sure folks are hung up about it so much as looking for something a bit more sophisticated for some parts of the massive span of years covered. Given the latter it would be hard to come up with anything more complex however that had any consistent historical foundation or validity over 4 and a half millennia . It is a kind of lowest common denominator, or minimalist system based on what John Keegan would call the heroic style of leadership . But as part of the game , for all that, it works well enough partly for being simple.

But it is pretty basic, and does not always satisfy me at least. I would do it different for some armies in some eras in the four and a half millennia as part of considering the organisation of those armies in those periods, which for me determines the command control arrangements - where there is clear and generally agreed historical evidence of greater sophistication and complexity .

How you do that is the debate for me. And a tailored structure superimposed consistently with the overall FoG(AM) design seems the way to do that - and mainly for historical refights and big games between historical opponents . It's no different in principle to designing your own siege rules and systems - which are not there is the rules. Both necessary for Alesia I would suggest.

Command control and communication ( C3) has always been one of the features of military history and military matters that I have studied , personally and for a while professionally, so I do like to see it built into games where relevant and not as an afterthought but as part of the top down design.

As the co author of FOG(N) it was a fundamental element we wanted to build in and essential in my view for the level of operations and the organisational structures we wanted to model for those mere ( sic) 23 years of history . We see the commanders in FOG(N) as part of a system and as an overall
" command resource" and how you use and deploy it is a key part of the game. It is more sophisticated/complex than in FoG(AM) but then so was the warfare for the most part. It is also a reflection of the increased professionalism of armies and the existence of large standing armies after 1485 , not a common or consistent feature of 3000-1485, though present in some armies at times (eg Roman and Macedonian/Hellenistic).

And I would not model it exactly the same for the 100 years preceding it nor for the 100 years after or for individual conflicts.

All wargames especially those with miniatures involve compromises ,explicit or implicit , with historical evidence , or the interpretation of that evidence ,and trading off of game play for perceived historicity or vice versa . I think we are all entitled to have different perspectives on how those compromises pan out sometimes and how they have been applied.

[ChrisTofalos]

Some interesting comments, mainly about commanders. I haven't come up with a better suggestion, just remarked about all that dashing about looking odd.

However, the only comment about push backs (by Graham) suggested, "I think the authors were of the opinion that recoils are a bit of a wargamers myth." Well, I think the authors might have got it wrong, if that's why they left the feature out.

I gave Cannae as an example, with Hannibal deliberately curving his centre forwards to buy time for the flanks to get to work. True, the Romans eventually burst through the centre, with a large number escaping back to Rome, but there must have been a reason for this unique formation and gradual absorption of the push of the stronger enemy centre is the only one I can come up with.

I haven't had a lot of time to devote to finding other examples (and my Armies & Enemies Books have gone missing after several recent house moves) but a bit of Googling produced the following:

Cynoscephalae 197 BC

Philip now sent more men into the melee, his Macedonian and Thessalian horse, who drove the Romans down the hill, until the Aetolian cavalry stabilized the situation.

Pharsalus 49 BC

When the lines joined, Labienus ordered the cavalry to attack; as expected they successfully pushed back Caesar's cavalry until his hidden fourth line joined in, using their pila to thrust at Pompey's cavalry and turn them to flight.

Nor are pushbacks confined to the Ancient period:

Langside 1568

The battle was now at its height and the outcome still doubtful, until Grange saw that the right wing of the Regent's army-consisting of the barons of Renfrewshire-was beginning to lose ground.

Benburb 1646

At this point, the fatigue of the British soldiers told against them and they were gradually pushed backwards until their formation collapsed in on itself.

Further Googling should produce more examples of what seems to be a fairly common feature of battles.

I believe FOG is a much more enjoyable set to use than DBM(M) BUT feel the inclusion of pushbacks would be both more historically accurate and add another, perhaps exciting, dimension to gameplay...

Chris

[philqw78]

Pydna where the legions pushed the pike back uphill into rough going


I believe the authors thoiught it would make the game more difficult to write and had mostly little difference to the outcome of battles. If troops were pushed back they were on a quick downwards slope

[MDH]

Re pushbacks I am agnostic on this in any period as we have so little understanding today, for any era, of the physical process when two great masses of armed people press against each other. Does a Greek hoplite phalanx actually push them back? Well it could with the business of pushing the shield into the small of the back of the men in front ( but somewhere here I sure I have read an argument that said that did not happen) and that pushback also involves men in the front ranks of the pushed back body falling.

It seems to infer a backwards step/move - not possible for horses of course except in dressage, and it is already pretty much agreed that the most common things in masses of cavalry advancing to contact was either they halted and attempted to fight or passed between each other, then turned and tried to fight or one side swiftly ran way - more or less orderly .

So some turning element is involved but that appears unfeasible for say a dense Pike formation - and it is pretty well agreed that the most dangerous thing you could do was to turn your back. And you could only step back in the front of the men at the back did so too. John Keegan in his Face of Battle makes an interesting suggestion that routs/ panics, retreats begin from the rear and not the front .

It obviously infers some ceding of ground.

I tend to think that rather than seeing it as a process contributing to an outcome ,we should see it as an outcome as such, whatever we call it - for one body to end up after a period of hand to hand fighting further back than before , a variable distance, and potentially either facing the enemy, or away from them, and the original enemy potentially still, or back in contact with them , or not .

The main argument against pushbacks for me is the problem of base depth. In miniatures as in almost any figure scale the depth of the models in units is usually far too great compared with the width given the actual or implicit figure and ground scales and the formations used historically- even pike phalanxes. In many ancient rules a pike phalanx four ranks deep in figures/base is far deeper that it strictly needs to be and a small push back is easily subsumed with the space depth it already takes up. What is more important is the state of cohesion of the body concerned.

[shadowdragon]

A very valid point about base depths and pushbacks, MDH. No doubt the losing of cohesion could conceivably be accompanied by rearward movement but is it worthwhile / necessary to show that on the table top? So, as you say, a consequence of outcomes already accounted for in FoG. I would not want to see an additional cohesion loss on top of The existing mechanism. The poor Gauls have it rough enough versus the Romans. For DBM it was different. The pushback was critical to determining outcome.

FWIW when I initially played FOG I thought one had to assign units to commanders who could only affect said units. I think it made sense for WoR. certainly wasn't as much zipping about.

[grahambriggs]

Pydna where the legions pushed the pike back uphill into rough going


I believe the authors thoiught it would make the game more difficult to write and had mostly little difference to the outcome of battles. If troops were pushed back they were on a quick downwards slope

I think Pydna was the other way round. Romans couldn't make any headway against the bristling pike so fell back (again some sort of planned move backwards needed) and that was into ground that broke up the pike formations. It's a little more like the legions were able to skirmish and fight individually whereas the need for formation in the pike made them slow and ploddy.

Sounds almost like foot breaking off from pike...

[lawrenceg]

AFAIK the first drafts of FOG included pushbacks but testing showed that players spent a lot of time moving units backwards and forwards without any practical benefit, so it was dropped.

If Chris had come into the game in the days of the Dominate Roman Swarm or super shooty cav/LH armies in V1 he might not have thought the game so free from gamesmanship. Those were mostly fixed in V2.

I'm a bit puzzled by the title of this thread. Chris criticises DBM, particularly the "Buttocks of Death", but doesn't mention DBMM at all except to say that he doesn't intend to try it (despite "Buttocks of Death" not existing in DBMM, generals behaving more in the way he wants them to and "pushing back" being an integral part of the game).

[ChrisTofalos]

A somewhat disappointing response. If half an hour's Googling through some fairly brief battle descriptions quickly produces four examples of pushbacks (five if you include my original reference to Cannae) then any set of rules intended to recreate warfare in the age of cold steel should include them. Not only could it allow troops to maintain impetus (by adding a + POA for following up) but it could also create opportunities to counter with flank attacks (I'm not sure how the Romans managed a planned withdrawal at Pydna whilst engaged hand-to-hand but, as the victors usually write the history books, I'll take that with a pinch of salt).

As for pushbacks wasting too much time, many other rules manage to include them without problems. I'm all for speedier games, so what about allowing double moves for all (triple with a general) until the 4"/6" distance is reached? Initial deployment is often the most important factor in deciding a battle, so what's wrong with allowing speedier closing to contact? That would make up for any minor time lost in making pushbacks.

And wargaming myths? If there are any it surely concerns overlaps. If overlaps were so decisive in real battles then there'd be no point in Hannibal curving his centre forwards at Cannae (or Epaminandos' using an oblique order at Leuctra). The first troops to contact the enemy would be double-overlapped, which can be pretty devastating, at least, on the wargames table. Of course, in reality the first troops to make contact would be supported by friends further back on their flanks. So how can troops give overlap support when there's an enemy formation bearing down on them? Are they going to ignore the perilous threat to their front by diverting their attention sideways? I think not.

I've been on online forums for a long time and realise there are some who just like an argument, no matter what. I'm solely interested in seeing the rules refined and improved and that's why I wrote my OP - and this one...

Chris

[grahambriggs]

I think you make good observations Chris. However I think the "elephant in the room" is that the authors have all, pretty much, moved on to other things and there seems little appetite amongst them for further rule development.

I do, though, quite like the way legion vs pike phalanx works in this rule set. It's fairly closely balanced with the legion only having a real advantage in uneven or worse terrain. Generally, it's quite heavily influenced by the relative quality level and the presence or absence of commanders. I found at the Warfare comp that my big Augustan legions had a realistic feel to them against Pike. i.e. we were confident when deployed well against poor or average pike but when I made a pigs ear of it we came a cropper.

I think the falling back thing at Pydna and perhaps Cannae too was partly due to more mobile/flexible troops being able to engage with the enemy, try their resolve and then break off if it didn't work or as part of a "draw them in" plan. This is what the cavalry break off move does, so perhaps something like that for these situations would work. Both pikes and legiories are shock troops so they would be tempted to charge in again. On the other hand they won't do that into disordering terrain, so that doesn't quite do Pydna.

[ChrisTofalos]

Thank you for a measured & thoughtful response, Graham.

Well, that's some elephant in the room! At least, you can't accuse Mr Barker of giving up!



Chris

[MDH]

I've been on online forums for a long time and realise there are some who just like an argument, no matter what. I'm solely interested in seeing the rules refined and improved and that's why I wrote my OP - and this one...

Chris

There is difference between unreasoned arguments for their own sake ( "Is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?") and informed reasoned discourse and debate. Naturally I prefer the latter. The former are too often be found in the below-the-line comments pages of the on-line mainstream media. Often from those for whom the 140 characters of Twitter, let alone courtesy and civility , seem a bit of a stretch! I don't think these fora tend to have that quality - at least not this one and the one for FOG(N) which are the two I read and respond to.

There are tensions I believe in miniatures rules design between historicity , accurate simulation and modelling , and gameplay. This involves compromises and determining what you as a writer think are the important factors for the game design. Do outcomes matter more than processes and game mechanisms ( like pushbacks, overlaps, phases, order of a play...) for example? I have argued from the 1970's in Slinsgshot inter alia, that, the wider the period of history chosen, for a set of rules the more bland and blended they become often sacrificing, sub-era historical feel, nuance and colour and simulation precision. The balance shifts to the mid point of a standard bell curve for many things.

The fact that you cannot consistently construct orders of battle and army structure across that wide range is a major limitation. For Greeks and Romans we can usually but for many others it is often pretty speculative as are the grand tactics actually used with those structures . So we can end up with broadly defined " units" or " battle groups" that can wander round the table irrespective of command and control and organisation. Chess without a grid.

FOG(AM) is in my view a good game system but it is a bit more like pub grub than fine dining when it comes to simulation accuracy. There are a number of periods within the 3000 BC- 1485 time span that I find unsatisfying - and did with much of the old WRG offerings to be fair. I am not sure that matters much for tournament purposes.

But I understand the drivers that lead to these kinds of rules sets. It is what most folks seem to want and a rules set that is published, but hardly sells, is not going to get you far whether in terms of persuading publishers to publish or to spread your own ideas and concepts. Online free rules sets are of course available now but what reach they have I don't know.

But there is nothing to prevent us embellishing them ourselves to suit our desire for a more nuanced and cultural feel.( I used to for WRG). To continue my foodie metaphor, I can make a better curry now than most high street tandooris or gastropubs ,( but do not aspire to Michelin standards! ) It needs time and some attention to detail and consistent recipes - and your own curry powder/paste mixes made form scratch.

The " official" authors' line that this particular site often focuses on, can be a bit of a chimera. As a FoG(N) author I don't feel quite so omni-wise and infallible as some might prefer me to be . I am prepared to alter my view - especially if there is evidence - for a revision that can be accommodated without totally undermining the game design and balance (and needing a reprint!).

[grahambriggs]

I've been on online forums for a long time and realise there are some who just like an argument, no matter what. I'm solely interested in seeing the rules refined and improved and that's why I wrote my OP - and this one...

Chris

The " official" authors' line that this particular site often focuses on, can be a bit of a chimera. As a FoG(N) author I don't feel quite so omni-wise and infallible as some might prefer me to be .

You're better than the other one! (see signature)

[MDH]

I've been on online forums for a long time and realise there are some who just like an argument, no matter what. I'm solely interested in seeing the rules refined and improved and that's why I wrote my OP - and this one...

Chris

The " official" authors' line that this particular site often focuses on, can be a bit of a chimera. As a FoG(N) author I don't feel quite so omni-wise and infallible as some might prefer me to be .

You're better than the other one! (see signature)

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment....

I blame that Don Featherstone, older men have been leading me astray all my life...

[philqw78]

......older men have been leading me astray all my life...

In a Jimmy Saville or Ollie Reid sort of way?

[MDH]

......older men have been leading me astray all my life...

In a Jimmy Saville or Ollie Reid sort of way?

Ollie Reid definitely - there is one old school and RAF friend who is a few months older than me who has always seemed to be able to get me far drunker than I planned and when I least expected it Standing joke between us.). He was the one who got me into a pub for the first time when I was 16 But then beer was only the pre decimalisation equivalent of 10p a pint.

And when I was in the MOD and at staff college the officers, all of whom were older than me, as I was pretty junior then ,were regularly doing so as if it were a fundamental element in the curriculum and part of the induction into their culture . I think I would have been graded " average" in "standing up drinking". ( Sitting down drinking is always easier.) In the mess of course well away from the eyes of the easily appalled civvies

But don' t we all have the late Don , and other venerable wargamers like the equally sadly missed Peter Young and Paddy Griffiths, among many others, to thank for enervating and adorning our hobby? Oh yes they definitely led me astray.

[hazelbark]

The biggest issue in commanders in FOG is they really represent something nebulous, but are personified and therefore you have great oddities. The duality was never really explained so you are right it looks odd.

Rarely do units fighting just do nothing...for very long. The problem/benefit with FOG is once you have and advantage the likelihood is it escalates. It actually creates a lot (too much) of predictability.

I agree with you on pushbacks. Could have been dealt with, but I think the AM authors wanted to dodge it for reason Graham covers plus they wanted to ensure the system didn't look like dbx.

While FOG AM appears to have a dual losses and morale attrition system, in practice the losses are only a factor for mounted units. FOG R has a better dual attrition because it far easier to have kills from shooting (gunpowder can do that). Not there is a case that a lot of ancient "losses" are in pursuit not in slugging it out so you may have realism here. FOG N takes a different approach and move you up the ladder a bit further and worry less about the details of an individual units precise losses.

FOG AM jumped the shark at two points. A totally botched version 2 effort. Enormous energy expended, little change and a horrific roll-out. The second was a willful effort to make armies dull and or bad. Masses of lists are redundant or pointless, combined with some viciously bad scoring of troop designations that serve to reduce viable options.

Still its been a great system and enjoyable, but since the authors have not provided care-and-feeding I think it is not an "elephant in the room" but an elephant being interred into the British Museum sadly.