A Beginner's Guide to the Specialist Economy (SE)

[nullspace]

Sure.

Each of the 5 AI civs give their 20 points to each other.

They now each have 220 (100 + 20 they researched + 20 you gave them + 20 x 4 they got from each other)

I think a smart player can generally benefit more from tech trading than the AI can. If the player is carefully cultivating relations and lightbulbing techs so that he can trade to five AIs, each AI is may be only getting techs from 3 other AIs. So by popejubal's math, this is a net advantage for the player. And I think that this net advantage is what Martinus meant by "stay ahead," that the player is getting as much tech as the AI at a lower cost.

Tech trading is a major advantage of lightbulbing because it creates a lot of beakers immediately. You can do things like lightbulb paper on the same turn you got civil service because you know that no one has paper. But if tech trading was off, what would you do? A lot of the techs that scientists can lightbulb are quite weak by themselves. Paper only allows map trading, printing press is useless to a SE, compass is poor on certain maps, and liberalism itself is only important for the free tech. With tech trading off, it might be a better idea to use CE or settle the scientists so that you can research techs you actually want to use, rather than follow the path that lightbulbs force you down. Also, since the tech pace will be slower overall, that allows more time for cottages to grow and for settled scientists to pay off.

 

[Wodan]

I think a smart player can generally benefit more from tech trading than the AI can. If the player is carefully cultivating relations and lightbulbing techs so that he can trade to five AIs, each AI is may be only getting techs from 3 other AIs. So by popejubal's math, this is a net advantage for the player. And I think that this net advantage is what Martinus meant by "stay ahead," that the player is getting as much tech as the AI at a lower cost.

And this is where an analogy leads to the wrong conclusion.

Just one example: AIs will trade with each other on parity level, whereas they require more from the human. e.g., you lightbulb an expensive tech (expensive compared to the other available techs). Say, Philosophy. The AIs will trade 2000 beaker techs with each other for 2000 beaker techs. Meanwhile, they will ask the human for a 2800 beaker tech. I'm sure your own experience will bear this out.

Tech trading is a major advantage of lightbulbing because it creates a lot of beakers immediately.

I don't disagree.

My point, and the thing that most people don't recognize when they tout the benefits of lightbulbing / tech trading, is that we need to take into account the relative benefit, as well as the absolute benefit.

So, when you say, "Tech trading is a major advantage of lightbulbing because it creates a lot of beakers immediately," I say yes I agree, but how much does the AI benefit at the same time?

The question isn't how much the human gains, but what is the relative increase in relation to the AIs. If the AIs gain at the same time as the human, it stands to reason that we need to "subtract" the AI's gain from the human's benefit, in order to get anything even close to a real perspective on the situation.

But if tech trading was off, what would you do? A lot of the techs that scientists can lightbulb are quite weak by themselves. Paper only allows map trading, printing press is useless to a SE, compass is poor on certain maps, and liberalism itself is only important for the free tech. With tech trading off, it might be a better idea to use CE or settle the scientists so that you can research techs you actually want to use, rather than follow the path that lightbulbs force you down. Also, since the tech pace will be slower overall, that allows more time for cottages to grow and for settled scientists to pay off.

Tech trading off totally changes things.

Your point is a good one, but keep in mind that those "useless" techs lead to other, definitely useful techs.

Also keep in mind that the AI will be researching those expensive "useless" techs the hard way. (The AI occasionally lightbulbs, especially BetterAI, but not nearly as intelligently as a human can.) So, look at the long-term situation. Over the course of the game, the human might lightbulb 15,000 beakers. Meanwhile, an AI might lightbulb 2,000 beakers. Given that tech trading is off, this can be a huge advantage.

The human lightbulbs Philosophy and researches Guilds. Meanwhile, the AI researches Philosophy the hard way and does not get Knights until much, much later.

Wodan

 

[Murky]

Nice guide.

I do feel strongly that the Pryamids are a must for the SE. I always go for them if I know they are attainable. Fastest way to get them with is the Metal Casting slingshot and using the GE to rush them. The Great Library can be chopped rushed after mathematics. The forges from MC increases production enough that you can produce more than enough units for war. I like to build my main GP farm then my production city. I know it's in reverse from the guide but it does help you get a GE & GS out sooner.

 

[nullspace]

The only thing I'm trying to say here is that a SE and lightbulbing is better when tech trading is on than when it is off. With tech trading on, lightbulbing often to get good trades is a powerful strategy. When tech trading is off, lightbulbing loses this advantage, and is less good compared to regular research. Whether tech trading is on or off is something to consider when deciding between SE or CE or where to put the emphasis in a HE.

And this is where an analogy leads to the wrong conclusion.

Just one example: AIs will trade with each other on parity level, whereas they require more from the human. e.g., you lightbulb an expensive tech (expensive compared to the other available techs). Say, Philosophy. The AIs will trade 2000 beaker techs with each other for 2000 beaker techs. Meanwhile, they will ask the human for a 2800 beaker tech. I'm sure your own experience will bear this out.

I don't think this changes the conclusion. I suggested that a good player could probably trade one tech for five in a situation where an AI could trade one tech for three, and you didn't disagree. Even if the player has to give a 2800 beaker tech to get five 2000 beaker techs, that's still about 3.6 beakers gained in trade for each beaker researched. But the AI that evenly traded three for one only got 3 beakers for each beaker researched. So I think that a good player gains a relative advantage over the AI when tech trading is on.

So, when you say, "Tech trading is a major advantage of lightbulbing because it creates a lot of beakers immediately," I say yes I agree, but how much does the AI benefit at the same time?

The question isn't how much the human gains, but what is the relative increase in relation to the AIs. If the AIs gain at the same time as the human, it stands to reason that we need to "subtract" the AI's gain from the human's benefit, in order to get anything even close to a real perspective on the situation.

I am assuming that you are making those five tech trades with civs that you are not directly competing with. If you are making disadvantageous trades with a civ that might win the space race, that is hurting your relative advantage versus that civ only, but is helping your relative advantage versus all the others. Likewise, you do not want to make a disadvantageous trade of military techs with a civ that you will fight soon.

Tech trading off totally changes things.

Your point is a good one, but keep in mind that those "useless" techs lead to other, definitely useful techs.

It's usually a better thing to have a good tech soon than to have a better tech later. Scientist lightbulbs will get you to chemistry and grenadiers quickly compared to researching, but it still takes time and money. What if I need macemen or trebuchets ASAP and can't wait for grenadiers? Scientist lightbulbs won't help me get machinery or engineering.

With tech trading on, I can lightbulb whatever and trade for what I want. With tech trading off, I'm stuck with what it gives me even if I need something else right away.

In other words, if I'm using a great scientist to lightbulb paper in order to get to chemistry, I'm using up a great person now for a payoff later. The best thing about the lightbulb is the immediate payoff, and I'm not getting any. I might as well settle the scientist or work cottages in the first place and use the additional research on something I do want soon.

Also keep in mind that the AI will be researching those expensive "useless" techs the hard way. (The AI occasionally lightbulbs, especially BetterAI, but not nearly as intelligently as a human can.) So, look at the long-term situation. Over the course of the game, the human might lightbulb 15,000 beakers. Meanwhile, an AI might lightbulb 2,000 beakers. Given that tech trading is off, this can be a huge advantage.

The human lightbulbs Philosophy and researches Guilds. Meanwhile, the AI researches Philosophy the hard way and does not get Knights until much, much later.

"The hard way" is just an expression. Those 15,000 lightbulb beakers were not free; you paid for them by running scientists instead of working tiles. It's certainly worth it much of the time, but it does depend on the increased cost of each subsequent GP, getting a city's GPP bar to fill up and actually finish a GP, and lightbulbing useful techs.

And what does philosophy have to do with guilds? If I want to found Shintoism or run pacifism right away, then lightbulbing philosophy is a great idea. But if knights are what's important, then philosophy is quite pointless, and I can skip it until much later. I could have used the GS for an academy or settled him, either of which would cause me to get to guilds earlier and will help my science rate for the rest of the game. Or I could have developed cottages instead of generating the GS at this time.

There are valid alternatives to lightbulbing, and I think lightbulbing is at its weakest when it doesn't help with tech trading. Definitely an interesting discussion, though.

 

[Wodan]

The only thing I'm trying to say here is that a SE and lightbulbing is better when tech trading is on than when it is off.

And, the only thing I'm trying to say is that a SE and lightbulbing is better when tech trading is off than when it is on.

(ps that's not the only thing you're trying to say. It sure seems like you're also trying to say that a CE is always a better choice when trading is off.)

I don't think this changes the conclusion.

It definitely changes the situation. Whether it changes the situation enough to affect the conclusion, that's the question.

I suggested that a good player could probably trade one tech for five in a situation where an AI could trade one tech for three, and you didn't disagree.

Ok, I disagree. Why don't you present some evidence for this theory, and we can try to see whether it has any merit.

I am assuming that you are making those five tech trades with civs that you are not directly competing with. If you are making disadvantageous trades with a civ that might win the space race, that is hurting your relative advantage versus that civ only, but is helping your relative advantage versus all the others. Likewise, you do not want to make a disadvantageous trade of military techs with a civ that you will fight soon.

Hunh. That's a fine argument, on the face of it. But look deeper... lightbulbing to get techs to trade only works and only is valid up through the midgame. It only works early because later, you are (1) getting only ~3k beakers per GP, techs cost many times that, and your regular research income will be such that the lightbulb won't have much impact at all. In addition, you're getting fewer and fewer GP because each one costs more and more GPP.

So, let's restrict ourselves to talking about up through the early midgame. Who is going to be rivals for the space race? Kind of hard to tell. Trading techs to any AI is going to make them a potential rival. As for military, easy enough to say "don't trade a military tech to Monty". In reality, any AI will attack you if the military disparity is in their favor.

To top it all off, the AIs pass techs around like the clap. Trade to one, pretty soon they'll all have it. We have no control over that process and it will happen. I simply don't buy the "selective trading" argument.

It's usually a better thing to have a good tech soon than to have a better tech later. Scientist lightbulbs will get you to chemistry and grenadiers quickly compared to researching, but it still takes time and money. What if I need macemen or trebuchets ASAP and can't wait for grenadiers? Scientist lightbulbs won't help me get machinery or engineering.

With tech trading on, I can lightbulb whatever and trade for what I want. With tech trading off, I'm stuck with what it gives me even if I need something else right away.

In other words, if I'm using a great scientist to lightbulb paper in order to get to chemistry, I'm using up a great person now for a payoff later. The best thing about the lightbulb is the immediate payoff, and I'm not getting any. I might as well settle the scientist or work cottages in the first place and use the additional research on something I do want soon.

You're simply talking about the difference between tech trading on and tech trading off. Yes, those are differences. That doesn't make them better.

Say you lightbulb X (with tech trading off). That allows you to get Y earlier than you would if you had to research the hard way. Meanwhile, you can spend your specialist beakers to get Z, or you can spend them to get Y. If Z is your goal, then I agree the lightbulb didn't help you. Does that mean the lightbulb won't be of use when you want to get Y? Hardly. Does that mean the lightbulb didn't help you win the game? Again, hardly. Also, keep in mind that if you know you want Z, you have the option of prioritizing other GPP than scientists. (Your example was Machinery or Engineering, which Great Engineers can lightbulb.)

Bottom line, your assumption is that when no lightbulbs are available, a CE can research Z faster than a SE can research Z. That is not necessarily true. In fact, it is frequently not true, especially in the early game (which is when we're talking about).

There are valid alternatives to lightbulbing, and I think lightbulbing is at its weakest when it doesn't help with tech trading. Definitely an interesting discussion, though.

Respectively: agreed, not agreed, and absolutely agree!

Wodan

 

[JackOfClubs]

I suggested that a good player could probably trade one tech for five in a situation where an AI could trade one tech for three, and you didn't disagree.

I think this is a very flawed model. In an ideal situation this might be possible but in most games it will be diametrically opposite. Wodan has pointed out some of the problems but here are a few more things to consider:

Continents: In most cases you may find yourself on a continent with 3 or 4 other civs while 2 or 3 are unreachable before Optics. This doesn't direclty affect your argument but it does reduce the 5:3 ratio you are positing down to 3:2 or 4:3. And if you happen to be on a continent alone with one other civ, you won't be able to trade at all due to monopoly considerations, whereas the AI civs don't seem to suffer from this restriction. (I don't know that for a fact, but my experience does seem to be bear it out.

Worst Enemy: There are two possibilities. If you are someone's worst enemy they will tend not to trade with you. If you are not their worst enemy, someone else is an trading with one of them will piss off the other. You can avoid this scenario for awhile in the early game, but eventually it will break down the trading opportunities. This is true even for skillful players, who tend to take sides early rather than try to keep everyone happy.

Research Preferences: Your scenario assumes that you and your five rivals are all researching different techs but in most cases the AI will tend to follow similar paths. There are slight variations, but getting 5 distinct techs to trade for one is very very rare. In my current game, for instance, I had Metal Casting before anyone, but the only techs I could trade were Preisthood and Polytheism to 3 other civs on my continent. (I was at war with the 4th civ.) There were other techs on the board but none that anyone wanted to trade.

Even if the player has to give a 2800 beaker tech to get five 2000 beaker techs, that's still about 3.6 beakers gained in trade for each beaker researched. But the AI that evenly traded three for one only got 3 beakers for each beaker researched. So I think that a good player gains a relative advantage over the AI when tech trading is on.

Tech Pricing: This assumes that the AI actually has a less expensive tech to trade for a more expensive one. Quite frequently however, the only tech they will have is more expensive than yours or at least is more expensive than the price they are willing to pay for yours. Consider the case where they have a 2000 tech and they want 2800 for it but the only tech you have to trade is 2600 . The trade won't go through even if you are willing to trade down.

I am assuming that you are making those five tech trades with civs that you are not directly competing with. If you are making disadvantageous trades with a civ that might win the space race, that is hurting your relative advantage versus that civ only, but is helping your relative advantage versus all the others. Likewise, you do not want to make a disadvantageous trade of military techs with a civ that you will fight soon.

This is actually a pretty big assumption isn't it? In addition to the factors I have listed above where the AI won't want to trade with you, there are times when you won't want to trade with them, which further reduces your 5:3 ratio.

 

[Wodan]

This doesn't direclty affect your argument but it does reduce the 5:3 ratio you are positing down to 3:2 or 4:3.

I considered this, Jack, but then I said to myself that the absolute number is kind of irrelevant and totally subjective. It depends on world size, # of AIs, map type, etc. For example, say it's Pangaea with 18 civs. You're going to meet them all quite early, so you can easily find 5 to trade with.

Regardless, I like you said it. It's the ratio that's important. Yes, even on Pangaea you can find 5 civs, but now there are 13 that won't trade with you. Excellent point and expressed very well.

Worst Enemy

Another thought that you sparked... players (especially skillful ones) will tend to have at least one early war of conquest. However, we should look at the typical situation. Early religions will spread primarily in their own region of the world. And, the AIs will adopt the majority religion in their cities, every time. So, the AI you decide to have an early war against will almost certainly have buddies of the same religion. Thus, that early war will preclude most if not all of your potential trading partners, because you will get "you attacked my friend" penalties.

Wodan

 

[Carnage04]

Tonight I am going to start my first game ever attempting to run a SE. I will be using your guidelines. I will keep you guys updated on my experience.

 

[Percy]

Great guide!

However, being the newbie i am at Civ4, i'm having a hard time putting it to use. I never seem to find the time to build military or to use scientists (i build infrastructure, or i try to build military but end up building too few for it to be useful, or i just plain wait for the city to grow back after whipping some, thus working all the tiles).

I guess most of my problems are from being bad at the game, but regardless, i would love to see a detailed report of a SE game at a decent difficulty level (Noble max). I seem to only find games played at higher levels which, while certainly astounding and very interesting to read, don't help me much in my low-level games, especially when everyone's assuming a lot (when it comes to city placing or tech researching) about what the reader knows.

So, any lowish-level, well-detailed, SE-focused game around somewhere? I asked Google to look on the forum, but he could only find the type of games i mentioned.

Thanks in advance for that, and thanks again for the guide and for all those who wrote on this strategy!

 

[JackOfClubs]

Sorry for the misleading title. It should probably have been something like "An Intermediate Player's Guide to Beginning the SE". Generally, if you are new to the game it is better to master basic skills than worry too much about economies and more long-term strategic issues. One reason that there are few, if any, SE games at lower difficulties than Noble is because most people that play SE are already somewhat beyond those skill levels. Also, though and SE can still be effective at lower levels, it is not really necessary since the AI is more forgiving.

But, since you're here, I hope I can give you a few tips on how to build up your skills with a view to being able to intelligently decide which economy to use. As I noted in the first post, I am not really an advocate of the SE but I think it is a good technique to master so that it is available if you need it.

First, you mention that you struggle with building military. Is it possible that you don't have enough cities or that they are not specialized enough? Generally it is better to build 3 cities early on and have at least one of them dedicated to building only military units. I usually build 1 worker while researching Bronze Working, use that worker to chop down forests to rush the second worker and use both workers to chop rush a settler which I use to found the 2nd city near Copper or Horse, if possible. If you do it right, the settler should come out before human barbarians come on the scene (usually around 2500 BC) and you will only need your original scouting warrior to defend the settler from animals. Then build a warrior (or archer if you have the tech) in both cities to defend, while your original warrior scouts more territory. Next build a third military unit in whatever city has better production and a settler in the other one. The military unit should complete first so send it out to the border near the place where you want your 3rd city. When the settler pops, move both units to that spot letting the settler play catch up to the military unit. This should get your 3 cities founded with a minimum of delay and should be fairly safe. If your 2nd city was a good production city, this third city should be as high in food or commerce as possible or vice versa.

Get your 4th and later cities from barbarians or AI enemies unless you see a really good site and have spare time to build a settler. This is probably not necessary on Noble and below, but at higher levels wasting growth opportunities building a settler can be deadly, so it is probably not a good habit to get into.

Now set your production city to cranking out the best military units you have and don't stop until you have won the game. There may be times when you pause to build infrastructure in that city, but you won't need much more than a barracks and granary early on. Your other cities won't need a barracks until much later and can focus on science infrastructure (which will be libraries and monastaries early on). When you capture/build other cities keep this ratio of 1 production to 2 science cities and you should be OK. During wartime it may be advisable to tweak this a bit so that you optimize military output, but don't sacrifice too much science or you will fall behind. That is one of the beauties of the SE: you can produce science efficiently while still fighting wars and getting cash for upgrades.

In the guide I mentioned that you should have at least 6 cities with libraries before the end of the Medieval period. That assumes that you have 3 or 4 production cities around cranking out units and the capital cranking out commerce. Nine to ten cities is a kind of sweet spot because maintenance costs skyrocket after that point and production/science can be too low with fewer. But before you even get to the middle ages, it may be good to play several games just polishing your skills with early settling, growth issues. When you get to the point where you don't find yourself frustrated with low output by the time you get to the begining of the Medieval period, then you know it is time to move on.

This assumes you want to focus on improving your game instead of just relaxing and enjoing it. The latter is a perfectly valid option and don't feel that you need to get up to speed if it is spoiling your enjoyment. Eventually these things will become second nature and that is when you should start worrying about the difference between Specialist and Cottage economies.

 

[Percy]

Hadn't noticed your answer, thanks a lot.

I seem to have quite a few left to grasp in general, not pertaining to any economic choice, so i'll try and experiment a bit with cottages, before moving on. Maybe it'll unlock some things in my mind =)

 

[iamnleth]

I'm clearly missing something -- I gave up when the AI had riflemen in 1300 while I was still using macemen. Perhaps I should've concentrated more on grenadiers.

Where can I find a guide on whipping/drafting?

 

[JackOfClubs]

Whipping.

Drafting.

 

[iamnleth]

Whipping.

Drafting.

Many thanks! I apologize, I probably could've found it easily myself.

 

[iamnleth]

What's the best possible way to make gold using an SE? Commerce city in capital + bureaucracy? If so, only one (in the capital) or multiple? Any help is appreciated.

Also -- I've seen many instances where expert players are defending their capitals and other cities with warriors (or little more) well into the late game. How is this a good idea... at all?

 

[Wodan]

What's the best possible way to make gold using an SE? Commerce city in capital + bureaucracy? If so, only one (in the capital) or multiple? Any help is appreciated.

If your goal is to make buttloads of gold (such as for repeated and wholesale unit upgrading) then SE is not a good choice.

Think of it this way: a CE gives you a lot of commerce, which you can divide into gold/research any percentage you like. Meanwhile, a SE givs you much less commerce, but gives you a steady income of pure research at the same time. So, a SE gives you less of the "raw material" to make gold.

If your goal is to run a SE, but at the same time you're wondering how to make the gold you need, then that's a better question. Early game, your best choice is to make sure you go straight for gold mines or gems, or rivers. Colossus can help on a map with a lot of water. Founding a religion or two, establishing the shrine(s), and aggressively spreading them around with missionaries (it's easier for a SE to spam missionaries).

Midgame, yes, put cottages in your capitol and run Bureaucracy. Continue to spam missionaries. You can adopt a "trade economy" by being friendly with a lot of AIs and if needed for ocean trading getting Astronomy early (maybe spend your free tech from Liberalism on it).

Late game, put cottages in your shrine city and Wall Street there. (Or, you could put Wall Street in your capitol, since it already has cottages.)

Also -- I've seen many instances where expert players are defending their capitals and other cities with warriors (or little more) well into the late game. How is this a good idea... at all?

If there are no borders nearby, then without paratroopers what's the point of having a strong unit way back where there is no threat?

Wodan

 

[iamnleth]

Many thanks for an excellent response!

1. I never really aimed at early gold/gems... perhaps this will help a little. Thanks for the excellent suggestions. Perhaps part of my problem is over expansion.

2. I see what you mean concerning the defense. Of course, when paratroopers roll around in BtS (as you mentioned), that all changes!

 

[Wodan]

Many thanks for an excellent response!

1. I never really aimed at early gold/gems... perhaps this will help a little. Thanks for the excellent suggestions. Perhaps part of my problem is over expansion.

2. I see what you mean concerning the defense. Of course, when paratroopers roll around in BtS (as you mentioned), that all changes!

My pleasure.

If you think you're overexpanding, then you probably are.

That also clarifies that your reasoning for being concerned about gold is that you're trying to pay your maintenance. Correct? Two ways to fix this: 1) get more gold, 2) reduce expenses. By asking how to do #1 you're missing out on #2....

Ways to do #2, early game: get Code of Laws as soon as possible, build Courthouses. Also, get Commerce asap... it gives extra trade routes, which is free money. Commerce also allows Markets, which you can whip using Slavery.

Midgame, keep in mind that most of your cities you probably don't want to bother building banks etc. The key to a good SE is building Research or building Wealth, or units. Many beginning SE players continue to build markets, banks, temples, etc, in every city. You only need those things for happiness or health, and often not even then. You should either be going on the warpath and conquering happy/health resources, or else you should be peaceful with tons of people (remember you spread your religion like mad) and have lots of good trade routes and can trade for resources.

Good luck.

Wodan

 

[iamnleth]

Awesome! I think I've almost got it down -- one last question -- how best to keep up militarily using an SE (I don't mean by teching, I mean production). I find myself lacking production. I can't bring myself to whip too much, it kills research! If I'm settling cities dedicated to production, how many should I have?

EDIT: I forgot - should I be building military units in my specialist-dedicated cities? I've tried, and it seems virtually impossible given I'm usually only working one hill in those cities (max 2).

Again, thanks for your continued assistance.

 

[Wodan]

Depends on what kind of SE you have. People tend to talk about SE as if there's just one way to do it, and all SEs are the same. That's far from the truth.

If you're running Slavery, then you're not running Caste System. That means you're probably running 2 scientists in most cities (even your production cities). Quite a few of your cities will have surplus food even over the 2 scientists. Once you have the essential buildings, you can use the extra food to whip units. Again, avoid the temptation to whip buildings you don't absolutely need.

Master the technique of producing great scientists in parallel. The best way to do this is don't build wonders. That's right, don't build wonders (except Pyramids). Instead build more units and go conquer more cities. Each city can run two scientists, so the more the better. You can let your slider get all the way down to 10% before you have to stop conquering.

Once you get to the midgame, you can have a GP Farm running up to 5 scientists with Oxford in it. By that time, your other cities won't be producing many great scientists anyway. But, remember, if you're not making units, you should be producing Research.

OTOH, you may have a Caste System SE. A Caste System SE allows you to run as many scientists in the city as you have food and happiness for. Bad health will slow you down but not stop you (since it's only -1 each). You can't whip, so your question of how to build military is a good one. Generally you want to pick one city to be your military city. This should be a good production city, lots of hills, on the sea if possible but no more than a few sea tiles (you want mostly land), with enough food to mine the hills. Make your first great general into a warlord and the rest you should settle military instructors (with one military academy) in this city. This city should be constantly cranking out units. You don't want specialists here, you want to be working the mines.

Sorry, running out of steam... it's late here. About out of advice anyway. Maybe someone else has something to offer.

Wodan