Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Great War => Topic started by: Basementboy on November 08, 2023, 05:41:58 PM
-
What it says in the title- any games you know of that do a good job of simulating trench combat- in particular the mix of brutal melee and more removed gunfire. 28mm scale is preferred but I’ll gladly take whatever- thanks so much in advance! :D
-
Through the Mud and Blood by Two Fat Lardies very much fits this bill.
There is also a Chain of Command mod to take the WWI ideas and apply them to the more recent CoC mechanisms.
-
If you can find them...
'Warhammer Historical: The Great War' (early war) as well as 'Warhammer Historical: The Great War: Over the Top' (late war). Both deal with the Western Front.
-
Will check both of these out! Thanks so much for the advice, folks! ;)
-
The two suggestions are about as far apart as you can get on style of gaming - so hopefully one sorts.
I’m assuming you are thinking small scale? If you are thinking larger, then If The Lord Spares Us (TFL) or Great War Spearhead take things up to much larger scale engagements
-
I heartily second Two Fat Lardies "Through the Mud and Blood." Distinguishes between Bombers, Trench Cleaners, ordinary Riflemen, men armed with Trench Brooms (SMGs or shotguns), Rifle Grenadiers, LMGs etc.
-
There's this one too:
https://www.pandyman.co.uk/trench-offensive (https://www.pandyman.co.uk/trench-offensive)
-
For grins-n-giggles check out this blog.
https://sidneyroundwood.blogspot.com/search/label/Great%20War?m=0
-
The two suggestions are about as far apart as you can get on style of gaming - so hopefully one sorts.
I’m assuming you are thinking small scale? If you are thinking larger, then If The Lord Spares Us (TFL) or Great War Spearhead take things up to much larger scale engagements
I am indeed looking for something relatively small scale- most likely platoon scale actions for the most part. I’ll check out the other suggestions as well though- always happy to have another system on my radar :)
-
At Fall In 2023 (last week) I played a game using the Trench Wars rules. They are sold by old glory. The author was the GM. Close combat was pretty bloody!
-
What number of figures per side?
I picked up Trench Offensive at Warfare yesterday which does what it says on the tin(or box in this case).
https://www.trenchoffensive.com/ (https://www.trenchoffensive.com/)
This is small scale, the starter box has three British and three German figures - nicely 3D printed with four heads each - mutagenic effect of chemical warfare? -, two colour printed sheets for the trenches, two d6 and a scatter die, and an A5 colour rulebook.
I am still reading the rules at the moment.
They have a range of figures, but I will be reusing the AWT figures as I paint them.
The rules have interesting mechanisms, and look well thought out.
More later.
While we wait, here is a battle report off their site.
https://www.pandyman.co.uk/post/counter-attack-trench-offensive-battle-report (https://www.pandyman.co.uk/post/counter-attack-trench-offensive-battle-report)
-
I feel like the scenery would be very well suited to crossfire as well, though never actually played that, so you know, trench worth or salt.
-
Contemptible Little Armies. This is the old classic for platoon sized games:
[https://www.northstarfigures.com/prod.php?prod=650][/url]
-
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhABTUB06xhFH09z16DPZ1g6Dwf7jcIjfFxBPdlGGefR9Ibk1qUEZjn0vlBWDTFxgIRr9bhMx3q0SmSYU9hlB6gAhIhZ8VSZ61J2pjk2zwiQW_WQ6HVomRSbDN0r0HOSHCHmvRtpqF-6NcAOwVgFkPF63G5mxhhSKgb19tXE6C1TjqT5cN19DRHfyasp_85/s16000/trenchoffensive-1.png)
If you want to have a look at the box contents, try here.
https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2023/11/trench-offensive-by-pandyman.html (https://ultravanillasmurf.blogspot.com/2023/11/trench-offensive-by-pandyman.html)
-
The Crusty Colonel has recently posted a series of youtube battle reports for the WWI variant of Chain of Command/Through the Mud and the Blood, starting here, which should give you an idea of how the game plays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ymgpST1knE&t=43s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ymgpST1knE&t=43s)
-
Thanks so much, folks! Will deffo take a gander at the YouTube series, always good to know what I’m getting into ;)
-
There's a new small-scale (5-10 figures per side) skirmish game out in the US called "Scouts Out!" The test games I've seen on You Tube use late war figures, but all seem to be aimed at the early war period - so no trenches. I could be wrong, but the set up generally smacks of some confusion about the Great War and how it panned out.
The Pandyman/Trench Offensive chap told me at Warfare on Saturday, that they have some trench pieces in the works, which should be out some time in January. He showed me some of them and they seem to have been designed in order to be counter-sunk into styrene blocks/tiles, which is much more appealing than the "scaling the north face of the Eiger" type trenches that most firms put out.
-
The Pandyman/Trench Offensive chap told me at Warfare on Saturday, that they have some trench pieces in the works, which should be out some time in January. He showed me some of them and they seem to have been designed in order to be counter-sunk into styrene blocks/tiles, which is much more appealing than the "scaling the north face of the Eiger" type trenches that most firms put out.
They have some rendering on the site's blog.
I did pick up the Sarrisa trench set at Warfare, and I know what you mean. They could do with some "No Man's Land" bits without the slopes.
-
Baron Von Wreckedoften, You are right about "Scouts Out" some solid mechanics but they do miss the mixed weapons of the later war. Like "Blood and Valor" there is no consideration of grenade tactics or rifle grenades and the unit organization is rather suspect. The bones are there, it just needs tuning to bring it into sync with the realities of the tactics.
-
Thank you for posting the link to the videos. I have watched 'Attack on a Strongpoint' so far. It is a good example relating to an entrenched enemy. Here are a few observations in furtherance of this discussion, FWIIW.
The scenario set-up appears to relate to the German withdrawal to the Hindenberg Line in early 1917 (it fits with an anecdotal report from the period; there is no wire; the Germans do not have MG08/15 LMGs; and the trench set-up is consistent with a rearguard action). On a general note, the table includes terrain features that facilitate an attack unsupported by artillery. There are several small ridges that offer defilade. This design is consistent with a textbook description of how to attack a hastily entrenched position. The other perspective, however, is the German view. Why set up a defensive position that favours the attacker in these ways?
The trench in this scenario is not like the deeply entrenched static lines during the opening of the Somme for example. The latter was orders of magnitude more difficult, though any entrenched position was a major problem to be fair.
The British force composition does not seem right for the mission. Bombers would not be used as such. They would have operated as a rifle section or as rifle-operating members of a rifle team. Crossing open ground to attack an entrenched position would have been absolutely lethal. Generally bombers followed the riflemen into the deep trenches and started clearing laterally or deeper into the network of trenches.
The process of bombing was very different from what was illustrated. One or two men threw the bombs; the rest carried supplies and fed them through to the throwers when in the trenches. The men with their vests and sacks of bombs were very heavily laden, so not easily able to be throwers themselves. Throwers were carefully selected, though in theory all of the men in a bombing section would operate as throwers.
A British rifle section could have thrown bombs in the way that was illustrated, where several men outside the trench would have thrown bombs into the trench. German riflemen operated the same way.
British advance guards in the pursuit to the Hindenberg Line typically operated as combined arms teams, with Stokes mortars in some cases, as well as the close attendance by 13- or 18-pounder guns.
Robert
-
The point about trench above-the-table lines is well made. Acheson created examples that could be embedded into foam or similar. Remember, however, that a lot of the trench systems in the northern Picardie region were above ground because of the high water table.
Robert
-
I didn’t know about that- so the whole trench system there was made from raised earthworks then?
-
Yes, that's right. Roughly from Armentières down to Loos, give or take.
Robert
-
Regarding the raised trenches - the qualifier is “to the extent that it constituted trenches at all”. Most of my reading relates to the areas around Passchendael, because those battles featured fairly prominently in Canadian history when I was a student in the early’90s.
In practice, the soil to make the raised defense lines had to come from somewhere and building them created low points that collected water (as well was the water coming from underneath from the water table). So the areas became very soupy, even when the defenses were above grade. Then the raised areas were subject to German artillery, which churned the whole thing into mud… After a fairly short time, the defense works were not especially well defined and the stereotypical Flanders mud that would drown soldiers was very widespread (that kind of mud wasn’t as big a problem elsewhere on the western front, but it shows up a lot in English-language depictions because British and Empire troops served a lot along that part of the line).
Not be of which applied as much to the German lines - the Germans were very good at siting their trench lines along any available ridges. The British trench lines were sited afterward where advances against the German lines stalled - often in low ground. Later in the war the British and their pals got more selective about where to site the lines (and in places didn’t actively defend a continuous line). But in some areas lines through low areas were unavoidable.
The difficulty in trying to advance (or even just survive) out of the wet low areas against positions that were relatively dry and well sited was one of the reasons Passchendael was such a meat grinder in 1917. The British and Canadian troops were basically ordered to assault ridges from a swamp.
-
The trenches around Neuve Chapelle, Aubers, Festubert, etc were built up above the ground with sandbags. In March 1915, the British broke into the German lines at Neuve Chapelle. The parapets were not very wide and were easily breached by the British bombardment. Direct fire was used, with artillery being wheeled forward during the night, as well as massive (for the time) indirect fire.
The Germans learned quickly from this. The width of parapets was increased up to 30 feet in places, with MG emplacements embedded into the trench walls at ground level. Although the trenches were on 'higher' ground, the water table was still a big problem. Walking the old lines around Aubers, for example, the higher elevation is barely noticeable. It does afford better observation but it is also clear why the Germans had to build trenches above ground as well.
Robert
-
Just finished watching the second in the Chain of Command examples online: 'The Platoon in the attack between the trenches'. It is clear that the first example is part of a campaign, so does not represent an encounter by a British advance guard on a German rear guard. Rather it seems to be part of a set-piece attack on German defences in depth.
In both scenarios, the first thing that stands out is no wire. This would be the case in a hasty entrenchment as part of a rear guard action. In a major attack on fixed positions then, if a preparatory bombardment has 'cleared' the wire, it is likely the trenches would be knocked about as well. It took several days to 'clear' wire. Eventually, trenches became such a magnet for preparatory fire that the Germans dug them to deliberately draw the artillery fire but defended the shell holes between them. Hence the need for the British creeping barrages to start in No-Man's Land and not on the trenches. Plus the depth of the barrages was increased significantly too.
The second thing that is noticeable is the discrepancy in force sizes. On the first day of the Battle of Somme, for example, a German platoon would be facing at least 2 and up to 4 companies of British infantry. If the platoon was unsuppressed (which was often the case with the lifting barrages adopted by some Corps) then the platoon could destroy the British attack completely. The two videos do not come close to mimicking this level of defensive firepower IMHO. It could be argued that the dice rolled favourably in one game but it is starting to look like a pattern.
The mechanics for bombers do not seem right. As mentioned previously, bombers worked along trenches. In this game, the bombers did get into the German trench system. Once in a trench, the narrow confines meant that the bombing team adopted very specific tactics. There was no process of everyone in the team throwing bombs. The process of clearing along a trench was slow and arduous. There were would be a lead thrower. He would throw a grenade/s (not too many at a time as the supplies had to last for a prolonged engagement with defenders with access to almost unlimited supplies of stick bombs) over and into the next bay in the trench. A rifleman would then round the corner of the bay and finish off any one who survived. The process was then repeated one bay at a time. All the while, the remaining 'bombers' would be feeding bombs to the thrower and would not be throwing them as well.
Trench blocks were common. This would lead to stand-offs between opposing teams of bombers until one or other withdrew back. The attacker was always at a potential disadvantage because of the risk of supplies running out.
Bombing attacks on suppressed defenders could clear more quickly. Here you read examples of a Lewis gun being set up on a parapet and firing down the German trench line to suppress their bombers for example.
Overall impression is that the attacking forces are too powerful, FWIIW.
Robert
-
Please note that my comments are directed at providing an historical perspective, in so far as I can based on my reading. Games are meant to be playable and fun, first and foremost.
Robert
-
Thanks so much for the historical insight, folks! Always nice to learn another piece of history :D
Monk2002, don’t worry about it, I like my games to strike a balance between accurate and playable, so this was very useful ;)
-
Thank you. Your comments express the spirit in which I hope my feedback is intended to be received.
Robert
-
Very interesting thread. I have a project for this on the shelf but have never seen any rules that are fast and fun enough to start working on building trench terrain. I read recently of a simple ruleset from Wargames Illustrated #235. Would anyone have a copy of that for sharing?
-
Some great analysis there, Robert. I'll try to add a few points in defence of the games, with the disclaimer that I'm not the writer of the rules or the scenarios and I didn't create the videos!
The scenarios come from the Too Fat Lardies' scenario book, 'Stout Hearts and Iron Troopers', written their WWI game Through the Mud and the Blood, although the Crusty Colonel is using a variant of the TFL WWII rules Chain of Command.
The first 4 scenarios are subtitled 'Training the Entente', and are specifically written to present a tactical challenge to the British platoon commander, and to teach the player how to use their assets to the best effect - using the Lewis gun and rifle grenades to suppress the Germans while the rifles and bombers move in for a close assault. TFL rules emphasise the role of junior officers and NCOs to coordinate the actions of their troops, and these scenarios are a useful primer to show how to do that. If the individual sections simply activate individually, the defenders will be able to defeat them in detail, so the leaders are needed to combine their actions.
Barbed wire is introduced in scenario 4. Other topics such as artillery and trench blocks are also addressed in greater detail in the rules, but including everything all at once will give the 'drinking from a fire hose' information overload effect!
The smallest subunit in the game, other than the individual leaders, is the weapons team (such as a machine gun team) but the most numerous unit is the section. I suspect that activating bombers individually would add a level of granularity to play that would slow down the game too much - of course, that is a matter of individual preference!
The scenarios are also intended to show the British platoon after the lessons of the Somme had been learnt. Or possibly not - when I tried the first scenario on the weekend, I moved my bombers into the open. They were completely wiped out by defensive fire, and I was not able to recover despite a tremendous run of double phases.
Again, thanks for the analysis, great points made and I will keep them in mind when I take my own run at these scenarios!
-
A further question about TFL’s rules- how accurate would they be for other theatres of war during the conflict? Gallipoli or the Eastern Front would surely be different, but if I remember correctly the Germans did dig some trenchworks in the east during warmer months when the ground wasn’t frozen.
-
Germans and Austrians operated on the Eastern Front. Trenches were ubiquitous but the type of trenches depended on the area. There are many examples of trenches built above ground, especially in the lower lying sectors:
(https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/smw/images/thumb/d/da/Trench_near_Smorgon_IMG.jpg/307px-Trench_near_Smorgon_IMG.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRkSDKu-C5PxMLx4nGhY4LqpSe3p1RyeZntJ-jqSWX3TtWMolL6EwuRMuFo8Sm9LqT1JgE&usqp=CAU)
In general, the trenches lay much further apart and were more thinly manned than on the Western Front.
Robert
-
"...how accurate..." is a more difficult question to answer. Gallipoli falls into three broad categories of action: the landings; set-piece trench warfare; and outflanking manoeuvres. The latter features the Battle of Sari Bair in particular. The landings did feature entrenchments. At Anzac Cove, there were two platoons of Ottomans that opposed the landing sites (it would have been more if the landings had taken place where they were meant to). One platoon was dug in on Northern Beach; the other was dug in overlooking the first plateau above the cove. The landings at Cape Helles were opposed by wire and trenches. The French landings were not; they dug in and defended against Ottoman counter-attacks before disembarking as planned. The British landing near Krithia resulted in them digging in, repulsing counter-attacks, and then disembarking.
The set-piece battles would be very difficult to model. The Krithia series of battles are a good example of trench warfare in 1915 but would be next to impossible to model 'accurately' with any degree of enjoyment for both players. It would be possible to play out, however, in a manner similar to the first of the playtest scenarios, minus the bombers and Lewis guns.
There are some interesting possibilities with Sari Bair, such as the New Zealand Light Horse night attack on the Ottoman outposts at the base of Rhododendron Ridge.
Robert
-
I'll try to add a few points in defence of the games...
No need to 'defend' from my perspective, Will. I know the rules well and understand what they are trying to model. Your extra details on the general concepts are well made for other readers of this thread, so thank you for posting. Also for the information on the scenarios themselves, which I am not familiar with as you can tell.
One minor point, which is in no way intended as a criticism of what you wrote. You mentioned the goal of showing 'the British platoon after the lessons of the Somme had been learnt'. This reflects the timing of the publication on the official leaflet about platoon-level tactics. It is important to note, however, that the British trained their forces in these tactics before the Battle of the Somme. The problems on day 1 and afterwards reflected other major factors that determined success, not the way that bombers, rifle grenades, and Lewis guns were used.
I have created a diagram to illustrate the alternative approach to the first scenario, taking the perspective from the 'other side of the wire'. Crusty Colonel did a great job with his videos. Here is the overhead shot of the battlefield for the first scenario:
(https://www.greatwarspearhead.com/_Media/attack-on-strongpoint_med_hr.jpeg)
I can't be sure about the exact terrain contours but it seemed like there were some ridges running at angles across the battlefield. I have marked out what appears to be the areas of defilade, which offered some protection to the British force as they performed a frontal attack. A German commander would not have permitted these covered lines of approach. One key feature, which is hard to model in this scale (and is not an issue with the rule set per se), is the difficulty in reproducing how the Germans would have protected against this. The red arrows show the lanes of fire that would have been laid down by MMGs positioned one or two tables away to the southeast.
The problem for the British is that no amount of junior leadership could overcome this type of battlefield tactical conundrum. It means, in practice, that scenarios have to be carefully thought through if the key features of the rules are to shine from an historical perspective. But, as I mentioned, the ultimate goal is to have fun...
Robert
-
The smallest subunit in the game, other than the individual leaders, is the weapons team (such as a machine gun team) but the most numerous unit is the section. I suspect that activating bombers individually would add a level of granularity to play that would slow down the game too much - of course, that is a matter of individual preference!
I understand your concern. FWIIW, I wouldn't advise reducing the granularity below the section level either. An alternative would be to modify the way that the section operates as a whole. Again thanks to Crusty Colonel's excellent videos, here is a screenshot of the key bombing attack in the second scenario:
(https://www.greatwarspearhead.com/_Media/bombers_med_hr.jpeg)
The red arrow and ellipse illustrate the mechanic as stands. It appears as if the whole section threw bombs some distance to land and have an impact on the whole German Gruppe. In reality, from what I can tell from reading anecdotal reports, the lead throwers (two men highlighted with the dashed white ellipse) would attack the area marked with the solid white ellipse. It might be possible to physically throw bombs further but line of sight was a major problem preventing this.
Once the bombers got close enough to attack the Germans then the enemy would attack back in like measure.
Hope the image helps. Just to reiterate, the whole bombing section would be involved but the effects would reflect that fact that one or two men were throwing; the rest were feeding them with grenades or rushing round the corner to finish off injured or concussed enemy with rifle fire or bayonet. In both instances, the range was very short.
Robert
-
The image absolutely helps! Will take your notes into account for certain :D
-
Hi, Robert and thanks for your fantastic comments! You've really highlighted the challenge of scenario design - how to make a historically plausible but still balanced game :)
Hand grenades are significantly more powerful in 'Cocking up Through the Mud and the Blood' than in the baseline WWII version of Chain of Command. In basic CoC, a leader needs to use an activation to throw a single grenade, with a 'to hit' roll required - greater than the range to target on 2d6. This gives a maximum range of 11", but thanks to the bell curve, the chance of hitting any target more than 6" away is less than 50%. Only after hitting does the player get to roll the firepower dice for effect. In the Colonel's videos, however, the bombers are allowed to roll their firepower dice (no 'to hit' test needed) at targets up to 11", resulting in the section rolling something like 24 attack dice! I think it would be quite reasonable, based on the photo you provided, to require each bomber to make the same hit roll as required in CoC. This would significantly shorten the practical range for the bombers, which will in turn reduce the number of throwers able to throw bombs.
I am looking forward to seeing how the Colonel fares with the next few videos, where the focus is on 'training the Central Powers', as the scenarios will involve lots of close quarters action!
-
Thank you, Will.
You are on to something, with regards to bombing tactics. Your observations are well made and are worth exploring further, IMHO.
I have watched all 4 videos in the series now. Here are some general observations, FWIIW:
- The attacker can consistently achieve victory with, at most, a force superiority of only 2:1. This is in the absence of the major drivers of success on the WW1 battlefield during the positional warfare phases, namely massive artillery preparation and force superiority in the order of 3:1 or more
- MMGs can be targeted preferentially. A lot of effort is focused on eliminating MMGs early. There is good reason. In practice, however, MMGs were hard to locate and eliminate. This was, in part, due to their careful positioning to fire in enfilade, making them hard to detect by frontal observation. Secondly their very low profile, even when not in protective hard cover. Try playing out a game where an MMG cannot be targeted unless there is direct contact base-to-base...
- The German infantry sections are constantly fighting with two hands behind their collective back, i.e. the two bombers not being able to contribute with rifle fire. This would not have been the case when defending at distance. All men would have used their rifles until the introduction of the MG08/15. As with the Lewis gun and Chauchat teams, some of the men in a section with an LMG would have been ammo carriers predominantly and would not have routinely contributed with rifle fire
- Even with massed tank attacks, such as Cambrai, Matz, Soissons, Amiens, etc, it is highly unlikely that an infantry platoon would work with two tanks
- The last scenario involved wire. The process for removing wire was determined when the attacker approached it. On both occasions when this happened, the British were fortunate that the wire was not an obstacle. There was a significant risk that the wire would have remained. The risk related to a die roll, introducing significant uncertainty. This makes it difficult for the defender too, as no part of the line is known for certain to be protected. The Germans often concentrated defensive fire on known gaps in the wire. Tanks offered the advantage that wire did not need to cut by artillery and mortars (specifically the 2" spigot mortars, not Stokes mortars). The success of Cambrai was facilitated by the fact that artillery could focus on a sudden pre-registered bombardment for suppression purposes, while the tanks opened lanes through the dense wire entanglements.
- My last observation is just a general impression. I can't quite put my finger on it but significant proportions of a force may not see any movement or other action, sometimes for quite long periods. Activity seems to focus around the 'junior leaders' and I wonder if there is an issue with the NCO leadership (or lack of) within the section/squad?
-
I am looking forward to seeing how the Colonel fares with the next few videos, where the focus is on 'training the Central Powers', as the scenarios will involve lots of close quarters action!
The first of these videos has been posted. It features the Germans attacking two British MMG teams. Just a quick observation about the set-up of MMGs. The game starts with the MMGs on either flank facing forwards:
(https://www.greatwarspearhead.com/_Media/mmgs-firing-ahead_med_hr.jpeg)
I have added the 90 degree firing arcs, plus a snapshot of the British right flank MMG team taken at table level.
Here is the alternative approach, illustrating how mutually supporting fire worked. Note how the right MMG team can be placed in defilade. The left MMG would be facing sideways, not forwards. This would give cover to the gunners from direct fire to the front.
(https://www.greatwarspearhead.com/_Media/mmgs-mutually-supporting_med_hr.jpeg)
Watch how the first option plays out...
Click here (https://youtu.be/6m6zyF4JqNI)
Robert
-
Thanks for the diagrams! Very useful information indeed ;)
-
Missed the last couple of days, but boy does Robert (monk2002uk) bring a superior perspective to any discussion on Great War infantry combat!!!
I can't off-hand recall which army adopted this (it may have been universal), but I seem to recall reading that bombing sections had a "near bomber" and a "far bomber" with the former lobbing a grenade into the next traverse along, and the latter going for the one beyond that to catch any enemy "hanging back". Obviously, cricket skills would give the Empire troops an advantage - that said, I did see a contemporary film of Poilus being taught to throw a grenade in much the same way that we were taught to bowl at school.....
(A propos nothing in particular, I do recall reading a short article indicating that Hitler once observed British PoWs playing cricket and joined in, being taught how to bowl leg-spin. It was one of those beautifully-written articles where you could not tell, for sure, if it was a spoof or not. Still, the thought of Der Fuhrer acquiring the skill to turn something from right to left is intriguing..... )
-
Suffice to say that throwers did not operate in this way:
https://youtu.be/WbtjtLmFwpM
Robert
-
That's definitely NOT the film I saw - although it does show why the most dangerous thing an officer should be given in wartime is a map!!! My one had a group of French soldiers and they were drilling as a formation - presumably with dummy grenades.
-
Missed the last couple of days, but boy does Robert (monk2002uk) bring a superior perspective to any discussion on Great War infantry combat!!!
You’re not wrong- I’ve been quite blown away by the expertise they’ve brought to the field! I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s some kind of celebrity professor going undercover on the site lol