Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Maybe a good solution would be a Hold Position command for squads. They'd stay in place (e.g. right in front of missile units) but fight those who come within melee range. They'd not move unless routed, or possibly beserked, but instead would maintain a defensive wall in front of vulnerable troops.

For me, that'd close the biggest tactical gap. You can Hold and Attack, but nobody can stay back and guard, unless they are Guarding Commander.

It'd also be nice, as has been previously mentioned, if troops ordered to flee (as opposed to those who broke) would stay with the army after victory.

Aside from that, formations would be a great and powerful addition, but additions are very different than things that feel "missing" when not there.

Maybe instead of true formations, the ability to have the troops line up in other than simple boxes? That wouldn't need to have any change for the battlefield aside from different start-up positions, and I wouldn't think it'd be too hard to add AI capacity to know when a line (for defensive men) is better than a box (for massed troops).

All just my 2¢, of course. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Lots of desirable & good things mentioned. Particularly the following:

1. units staying in their group, rather than dashing off each at their own speed. Or at least to have this as an option.

2. a 'hold' command

3. distinction between 'fleeing' and 'routing'

4. some kind of bonus for units which are flanked on either side by members of their squad - at least a morale bonus, and maybe a defense bonus. Of course the penalties to defense already in the game (at least Dom I) for being surrounded might have the same net effect, if you get my meaning. But maybe a morale bonus?

5. different shapes for squads - can be done manually by subdividing into small Groups and placing alongside, but it would be so much easier if you could just make a line.

Don't know if any of these are possible/probable, but they sound like good ideas to me.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

I was browsing through the newgroup on strategic games on which there has been much discussion of Dominions and found an interesting discussion about retreating/routing etc. which I think highlights the need for a distinction between the two.

Here's the link: http://Groups.google.com/Groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UT F-8&frame=right&th=78a826cc26bae4e6&seekm=3b686ab1.3 4607325%40news.inet.fi#link1

The point raised that grabbed my attention was the guy who tried to storm a castle, while leaving 3 sages on 'siege castle', failed to capture the castle, and had all his troops that routed killed automatically for fleeing into 'hostile' territory - even though he still owned the territory!

of course that doesn't have so much to do with the proposed distinction between routing and retreating, but something's definitely wrong there.

*edit - sorry this is the wrong thread - the one that I meant to post in was "Cavalry archers, and other lost units"

[ October 01, 2003, 18:04: Message edited by: st.patrik ]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

If this gets fixed...
I feel the Illwinter Dominion increasing...

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Full-featured formations would take a lot of work, of course. However, I think that 2 small changes could add a substantial amount of control and flexibility, for minimal development effort, minimal army-screen micromanagement, without breaking the AI.

The changes:

1) A "Tight" versus "Loose" toggle for each group.

Tight: Default. Like Dom I, units are packed as close as size allows; e.g., 5 hobbits, 3 humans, 2 horses, or 1 troll per square.

Loose: Units are packed less tightly. The number per square is max/2, rounded up. Examples include 3 hobbits, 2 humans, 1 horse, or 1 troll per square.

2) "Square" versus "Wide" toggle for each group.

Square: Default. Like Dom I, the group is shaped like a square on the map.

Wide: The group forms a 2x1 rectangle, 2 tall by 1 wide. In other words, the group shows a wider face to the enemy, but is not as deep.

I think that adding both of these would allow players to better utilize - and increase the strategic differences between - heavy/light troops, cavalry/infantry, and ranged/melee units. Furthermore, it would allow easier and more flexible deployment. Currently, you can achieve both of these effects - mostly - by breaking your army into lots of tiny units. In other words, you can make a "loose-ish" formation by placing units in 4 adjacent Groups rather than a single group, and you can make a "wide-ish" formation by placing 2 Groups vertically adjacent. Both of these are tedious, imprecise, disrupt AI targetting algorithms more than the formations would, and require constant rebalancing after each battle to keep the same number of troops in each sub-group. Furthermore, split subGroups rout very easily compared to large Groups.

This does not, of course, give the "Formations or Bust" party what it wants, but I think it would be a quick and easy way to increase battlefield control while reducing micromanagement. Thoughts?

-Cherry

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

I just failed to take a castle in Dom I (two ethereal hydras blocking the breach!), and the surviving men routed to an adjacent friendly province. Seems to me they really should just retreat to the province with the castle, not to an adjacent province, but they didn't get eliminated due to no retreat route.

BTW, I would also like to see some of the men who can't retreat just get scattered and go into hiding rather than be eliminated completely.

PvK

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

I finished a wild game earlier this week where the final battle was in the enemy's home province. I couldn't seem to dislodge the enemy Pretender from his castle, no matter what I threw at him. I spent a lot of time after each attempt gathering up knights errant, if you know what I mean. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

The game finally ended when the Last black candle "burnt out" and my Dominion was everywhere. Big puff of smoke from inside the enemy castle, and it was Game Over! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Lol, I love when I kill enemy pretender that way. In my current game I killed Marignon while I was still preparing to invade his castle. He had only 2 territories and lots of troops in main castle but all of it gone with Last candle. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Strong dominion, never leave home without one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

so how you fare now, Psitticine and Daynarr, is the AI still impossible to beat on 'impossible' http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

What do you think is the hardest difficulty setting, and number of AIs that you can beat reliably? 8 on Normal? 6 on impossible ? I would like to know how the game is in difficulty compared to Doms I.

1) Also, is Ermor still able to walk over the other AI, or are the AI now able to counter the undeads with mass of priests?
2) Are the blood nations operating normally? In Doms I Abysia were not very cute when it cames to blood slave usage. It was perhaps the weakest nation (for the AI to take), because the AI didnt knew how to be a big bad demonist http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

For now, I'm playing on the very small, quick-game maps since I'm trying to test as many nations, themes, etc., in the time left before the gold date. Because of that, I rarely try to take on more than just 1 or 2 opponents. If I add more than that, there just isn't room for us all!

As far as AI setting, umm, "Normal" is rough enough for me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif My game is steadily improving, but I still lose more often than I win.

I'm trying to remember, but I'm not sure I've yet played against a Blood magic-dependent AI opponent, so I'll have to pass on trying to answer that one.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

The AI is cheating on harder diff. levels? [Example: Civ3. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Yes.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">1. The AI still have problems with the Ashen Empire, but fortunately it is not the standard theme for Ermor.

2.The AI have learned how to gather blood slaves, use blood magic and make blood sacrifices. This was necessary as AI-Mictlan would die very quickly otherwise. They must sacrifice to get dominion.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Bah! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">if cheating is receiving quantitative advantages, then yes the AI cheats. I dont think that new (refined) algorithms are used on higher levels of difficulties (few games have ever done that, but Gal civ function like that).

what I dont know is, does the AI have access to informations it is not supposed to gather, like in Age of wonders, the AI which dont have the fog of war.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

It hardly seems like cheating (per se) for the AI to take production bonuses, if the player told them to do so in the game settings.

PvK

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

no problems too on that, I wanted to know what he means by cheating.

On the other hand I would hate to discover that AI plays without fog of war.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Play a 1-on-1 game on a huge map against an AI nation like Caelum or Pangaea, after a dozen turns it will start landing hawks or wolves on your provinces.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

He can use spies too you know. It doesn't mean he’s cheating if he starts landing arrows from afar. I'm not 100% sure but I think he can't see whole map. In one of my games I had increased my defense forces significantly and had steady patrols along borders, so they would intercept any spies. When arrows and flames started coming they would only attack commanders along the borders and in my home province. That gave me impression that he can't see whole map but as I said I can't be 100% sure. Only devs can answer that one.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">if cheating is receiving quantitative advantages, then yes the AI cheats. I dont think that new (refined) algorithms are used on higher levels of difficulties (few games have ever done that, but Gal civ function like that).

what I dont know is, does the AI have access to informations it is not supposed to gather, like in Age of wonders, the AI which dont have the fog of war.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ah, Gal Civ, my other addiction!

I shouldn't be mistaken as anybody who has any kind of authoritative info on the AI's inner workings but, if I remember some Illwinter-posted comments from the beta-forum, the harder AIs get more design points to spend at the begining of the game and that's it. If you choose for them to have such an advantage, then they can spend those points on stronger gods, more advantageous scales, and/or better forts, but they otherwise have to play by the same rules as the player.

Circumstantial evidence from the oddball game I played Last night (I just kept having lucky break after lucky break! It was awesome! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) certainly indicates the AI doesn't have any Secret Knowledge at the Normal level at least.

In this game, the AI-led Ulm attacked north around a lake when my southern defenses were nothing but a sham. Northward, my Jotun armies were gathering beyond the border provinces to eventually sweep around the lake and attack. Those same armies were well able to withstand the assualt and then pressed forward to redefine the border quite substantially in my favor.

To the south, the border provinces themselves were defended to the same degree as the northern borderlands, but there wasn't anything of note beyond them. If one had fallen, the path would have been clear for a rampage or possibly even the conquest of a large part of my empire. (Did I mention I got a lot of lucky breaks? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )There's no way the AI would have chosen to go north instead of south if it had known what lay beyond the bordering provinces!

If they did know where my military strength really lay but had chosen to assualt the northern armies before they could strike, past experiences show they wouldn't have gone about things the way they did, with a less-than-overwhelming multi-pronged attack. They were not all that threatened where they were (due to their own Dominion being stronger than mine there, plus a good degree of provincial Defence in place) so it simply wasn't time for a desperate move. The AI only makes futile assaults if you've bottled them up so thoroughly that they have no other options.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If the AI did actually sneak stealthy units, I expect some of them would be intercepted by my patrols eventually. Yet I've never seen it happen. OTOH I've seen lots of AI spies, assassins, etc. in standard battles.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No answer needed from the devs, I just ran a quick test to prove you wrong. Edited the Europa map, removed all #specstart except Pangaea which I relocated in Iceland. Added 10 Pandemoniacs to speed research up, and an air-4 Manticore pretender. Added a couple "BLasted Heath". Recruited the first non-mage merc available. Researched Conjuration 4 and Enchantment 4, then switched the nation to AI control. I did all this to make sure Pangaea could cast Call of the Wind/Wild and Seeking Arrow, while being unable to move outside its capital or to use Astral Projection.

My second test nation, Arco, was randomly placed on the other side of the map, in Aegyptus. One of the leaders here was pinned by a Seeking Arrow the very turn after I switched Pangaea to AI. Even if Pangaea had received a Stone Sphere as an event, it needed an extra turn to use it to locate Arco. QED. The AI knows where you are.

Now what's really funny is the AI seems to be fond of casting "The Eyes of God" - what a waste of gems ;-)

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If the AI did actually sneak stealthy units, I expect some of them would be intercepted by my patrols eventually. Yet I've never seen it happen. OTOH I've seen lots of AI spies, assassins, etc. in standard battles.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've had the AI try to assasinate one of my commanders - having to go through some of my territories stealthily to do so. But only once, so it doesn't seem like the AI uses stealthy critters much. And this doesn't answer whether or not the AI uses spies to gather intelligence.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You mean stealthy units = stealthy armies? If you are talking about armies I have seen Panganea on several occasions try to sneak an army to my home province (didn't see other nations though). As far as spies, assassins, black servants, etc. goes I use them often to mark target. So if you see a lot of them, why wonder if AI knows where to shoot?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is probably true (almost certainly since we can’t tell what info AI gets when you switch control in mid game) but that means that AI can see where to shoot those spells, not that he has all info about your troops, movements, or that he can declare war on you from other side of the map without spotting you with spies first. He could be using "cheat" info only in that aspect of the game. He doesn't appear to see everything judging by his actions (e.g. movement troops, directions of attack).
The thing is that we don't play same game and even if AI could see everything in Dom I things could have changed somewhat in Dom II. So, "no need to ask devs" statement seems a bit rushed. We are both guessing something they know.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Waste of eyes too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

I just realised (reading Sunray_be's website) that one of the negative random events is an assassin trying to kill one of your commanders - so it may be that it wasn't the AI.

So just ignore my earlier post http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">... if you see a lot of them, why wonder if AI knows where to shoot?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I mean I've seen lots of AI *unsneaked* spies, etc. participating in standard battles with other regular troops - just like if they were regular foot commanders. I can't see how these unsneaked spies could gather more intel than the regular commanders they journey with ;-)

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As Pangaea I had absolutely no info on Arco when I switched Pangaea to AI - let's say that was in turn N. And this Seeking Arrow did hit in turn N+1, so the spell was planned the previous turn (turn N), at a moment we know Pangaea had no "real" knowledge on Arco's location.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">On the contrary I've seen strong evidence that the AI monitors your leaders' moves, and I believe he's particularly fond of targetting heroes - I remember one occasion when I used the Caelum hero named Caelos to ferry troops deep into my core provinces, and guess what? 3 turns in a row, in 3 different provinces, the poor unescorted Caelos was targetted by Seeking Arrows.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">My test proves otherwise, since Pangaea couldn't send spies outside of Iceland to spot Arco. Or maybe you don't consider a Seeking Arrow serious enough to qualify as a declaration of war? Then I've news for you: I generated a couple more turns and Pangaea started sending hawks and wolves on Arco.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">AI = dumb. It can't analyze positions like you do, but from that you shouldn't infer that it hasn't access to the info.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sorry if I didn't make it clear, every bit I wrote was related to Dom 1 only.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Play a 1-on-1 game on a huge map against an AI nation like Caelum or Pangaea, after a dozen turns it will start landing hawks or wolves on your provinces.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">yes, I remember that it does that, but it seems quite random. Often they will bump on a group far too big for them to handle. So this is far from being an evidence that they are scanning your empire without fog of war.

edit : ok, I replied to a post of you, without having yet read the other Messages (and your testbed).

I would like to have Johan or Kristoffer drop a line on this, at least I hope that if the AI see thru fow, thats only for distant spells and not for planning how to counter your armies? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

[ October 05, 2003, 06:31: Message edited by: Pocus ]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

I didn't make the AI, but I believe that the AI acts as if it had the input of a human player (mostly military info of neighbouring provinces).

However it also has access to ownerstatus of provinces. Thus it can cast spells from afar without regards to the military precense of a province.

I'm not sure to what extent it has knowledge of the wereabouts of special commanders.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

wtf? cheating AI? AI will see everything on the map in Doms 2???????????????????????????????? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

I hope that this IS NOT TRUE!
I thought the the AI will be lot better than in Doms 1, so what is going on? We will have a nice cheating AI, which basically won't be better than the Doms 1 AI?

Damn now I will wait for the demo. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Hey, no need to call the mighty AI a cheater!

It does play with fog of war and has no idea where your little arch mage is walking around peacefully, searching for magic sites. Unless he has a scout there, of course.

To make the AI creation a possible task there are some differences in how it and a human player get information. But this should have no noticable effect on how the AI plays the game, compared to a player with the human information. It does have info on the ownership of provinces when targeting spells, but in most circumstances a human player would have a very good knowledge about that too by looking at the score graph, using some old scout info and making a qualified guess.

I think the Dominions II AI is exceedingly honest. If you assassinate one of its arch theurgs it really must cancel that order for 45 gladitors if it wants to replace him. If you conquer half of its provinces it really looses half of its income and he will be in just as much trouble if he gets sieged by a barbarian horde on turn 5. And of course he receives just as many unlucky events as the next player.

I think it is important that the AI plays by the same rules as much as possible. I really don't like a game where the AI is unaffected by any attempts to destroy its economy and instead it sits around with an enormous pile of cash waiting for you to get powerful enough to destroy it in one swift blow instead.

If the Dominions AI gets a pile of cash it will just spend more money in order to eliminate you faster. Therefore it is always short on cash just like any normal player.

/Johan K
Creator of the AI, God of War, patron of merchants

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Amen (or Oom if you prefer so) to that Johan.
It's good that the AI is honest.
And with cheating i indeed did mean getting extra design points, sorry for any confusion...

[ October 05, 2003, 11:40: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

I can't say anything about Dom I (still haven't had time to try it out) but I can definitely second the AI's usage of scouts, spies, and assassins in Dom II.

I'm always swatting the little buggers, and I've had many assassins sent after me. In one particular game, I had pushed up to the gates of the enemy's home province, but the battered remains of my army couldn't beat the enemy pretender and his guards within the castle, so I was prowling around the bordering provinces, nailing them down and building some temples. The AI's economy was a wreck (it was endgame time) but it apparently had enough to fund an assassin every turn or two. They kept seeking out the commanders of my army, and the damage they did was enough that I finally had to pull back my most valuable commander (my prophet) to keep her from getting hurt any worse. (They'd already given her the Limp affliction.)

Once I had fallen for it (slapping forehead) and the prophet pulled back with her troops, the Pretender came out with his back-up men, crushed the other half of my already-weakened army, and then proceeded to reconquer quite a bit of what I had just taken. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

I should have pulled everybody back; to stay in place just wasn't a good idea. Then we could have charged en masse when the reinforcements arrived. As it was, the final toppling of the enemy was delayed quite a bit, and all by clever use of assassins.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

thanks for the added precisions. I think it is a most fair AI.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

I say lets wait for Doms 2, and we shall see the AI..if we will find areas what will need to be tweaked, I am sure that Illwinter will gladly update it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Ok I will put in some of my gaming experiences with AI in Dom II in order to quench everyone’s fears, and even compare to AOW2 AI since it can be used as example of All-Seeing AI (although I don't like doing that).

First let me point out something, AI has all the info of your empire simply because it's stored in your PC. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
The difference about all-seeing and not all-seeing AI is what info he will use when he makes his turn; will he use info that would be available to human player only or more than that. More than that can be only little more and only in specific areas of the game, not necessarily everything.

My experience with AI in Dom II is quite different from Jaque's in Dom I. Lets stick with seeking arrows for now. AI in my games uses them a lot; hell most AI's with powerful air magic seem to go after me as soon as they spot me so I've seen a lot of arrows land on my provinces.
I'll concentrate on one specific game where I was fighting Vanheim (I was Man) on large map with both of us quite large and only at war with each other. As soon as Vanheim declared war on me he started using those arrows and he didn't stop until I took his home province and most of his other provinces. During this pretty long fight (both of us had quite stretched empires and lots of resources) he would use seeking arrows in what can safely called random fashion. I had Groups of mages in couple of my inner provinces making items and researching (lots of sages particularly in couple of provinces). Also, logically, I had a number of good commanders doing war with at the front and lots of priests along borders to prevent enemy domains speeding into my provinces (1 or 2 at each border province at least). The arrows that AI sent against my troops would mostly hit my most numerous commander types along the borders - priests. Sage never got hit as I had 20-30 provinces and they were only in 2-3 of them so I guess they got lucky. Sometimes some of my commanders would get hit too and more powerful mages but such events would be something like 1 in 3 or 4 arrows. AI wouldn't target same provinces all the time nor did he ever displayed awareness that he knew where my most powerful commanders are, including my pretender (Cyclops in that case). So I draw 2 conclusions from this experience:

1) AI did not use info on my commanders locations (did not see them if you will) and did not target my most powerful ones with ranged spells, instead using ranged spells in semi-random fashion (semi because he would target my border provinces mostly, although not exclusively).

2) During my game fighting with Vanheim I did get the feeling AI knows what provinces I own.

Ok, getting this cleared lets comment scouting for a moment. In Dom II I kill hordes of black servants (these seem to be most numerous), spy's, scouts and assassins that other empires send through my borders. He does that very often and apparently builds scouting units and sends them around. So, if AI builds them and sends them roaming around (and assassinating some of your commanders in the process - yes I had such experiences too and they were not random events but one specific Abyssian assassin that killed 2 of my priests and 1 not so weak mage) and knows where your borders are, can you really call him cheating? If he builds and sends scouts around, then its logical he will be allowed to know where your provinces are located since that is the info they would gather.

In all my games so far (and I've had a lots of them by now) I have NEVER felt like AI is truly cheating, although I never played on levels harder then normal either. On normal level, IIRC AI has same conditions player has (no special bonuses) and it really FEELS like you are playing on even terms instead of being cheated.

You know how AI in AOW2 knows where you cities, your sites and your armies are (pretty much everything)? So when you move defenders from one city on remote side of the map, he will send force to capture that town. And if you put defenders back in that town he will pull back his now (in his, not so good, judgment) insufficient force even if there is no way he could normally see it. In AOW2 AI would react to all events around showing that he has access to all the info normal player would not. That is safe to say that it's cheating.
OTOH in Dom II I have never seen such AI behavior. AI does not favor provinces with lots of special sites (discovered or not) and does not attack as if he knows where your main castle is. He will focus on fortifications in your empire since they are strategically valuable and will favor your home province but only when he reaches them. He won't send a force from other side of the map to capture your weakly defended home province like AOW AI would do.

Ok, to wrap this up, AI in Dominions II is simply playing like normal human player would (of course, not as strong as experienced Dom veteran can, but that is why stronger levels are available) and in ALL my games I have never felt cheated by AI.

I hope this will quench some of your fears regarding this matter.

BTW. This post could very well be my largest so far. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No ****, it took 2 hours for me to read the whole post of yours. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
[j/k http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ]