Posts Tagged ‘Strategy’

So, you want to build a Roman Onagertm? Tired of not being able to get through that small pile of wood on the way to the shop? Sick of being terrorised by sandcastles that choke the beach? Want to show the guys in the office who’s really boss? Well today is your lucky day!

Following my easy 17-step guide, you could be in possession of one of the fiercest siege weapons of the Roman era. Rome may have not been built in a day, but it could’ve been torn down again just as quick thanks to this wonderful piece of engineering. Now you can bask in the glory, knowing that anyone who crosses you will get a pathetically small stone in the face.

Prepare yourself:

Step 1: Pre-Order the Collector’s Edition of Total War: Rome II, by Creative Assembly. It retails at about £109.99. If you didn’t pre-order the game, build a time machine and go back in time, so you can pre-order it.


Step 2: Have an argument with your girlfriend about how you spent £110 on a videogame. You won’t win, but there’s nothing she can really do about it now, is there?

Step 3: Open the box containing the Authentic Roman Onager(tm), and spread out the pieces, revelling in the task that is before you.


Step 4: Realise that you can’t see any instructions, then begin a frantic search for them. Scratching your head and fiddling with your beard is advisable. If you don’t have a beard – grow one, and then return to this step.

Step 5: Sigh in relief as you realise they were actually stored under the cardboard holders that held the collector’s edition’s bits and bobs. Make a mental note to play a game of Tabula later, using the game board that appears to line the inside of the case.


Step 6: Stop your girlfriend, who in the intervening time between Step’s 3 and 6, has proclaimed that she doesn’t need instructions and has been trying to assemble it without you.


Step 7: Lay out the Catapult Frame. Pulling the centre rope tight, insert the front and rear cross member’s, making sure the rear cross member has the indent facing towards the sky/ceiling/you. The throwing ‘spoon’ is meant to rest in the indent later.


Step 8: Insert the upper posts, and then insert the upper post cross member into the slots. It should fit flush. If not, you used a wrong piece in step 7. Give up on life and just walk away.

Step 9: Take a moment to consider whether or not you should be using glue, as there appears to be a sizable amount but so far no indication as to when it’s used. Ultimately decide against it, and carry on.


Step 10: Insert the support posts. They will form a triangle between the upper posts and the ‘rear’ of the frame. They may be a bit loose, so feel free to use some of the afore mentioned glue.

DSCF0973 DSCF0972

Step 11: Insert the Axle through the left hand hole in the front of the frame. Make sure the latch is pushed up so that it doesn’t impede penetration. In the other hole you can slide in the wooden cover, which looks like a small wooden cup. Put some glue on the inside so that it will secure the other end of the axel to it. The Axle must still be able to rotate freely, even when fully inserted.

Note: The other end of the Axle, as in, the one not being glued to the wooden cover, has a metal cog on it. That’s meant to interact with the latch. Later, when you’re winding back the throwing arm, it’s meant to prevent the axle from releasing the tension too early. Have a little play and make sure it works. If you accidentally break the cog off, it should fit back on, and you can always use the glue.


Step 12: Prevent girlfriend from putting the rope in the wrong way.


Step 13: Insert Catapult release rope through the axle centre hole. Tie a not at the end that will secure the rope to the axel. Make sure it’s not the weird metal claw-thing on it.

DSCF0978 DSCF0979

Step 14: Now for the fun part. The centre rope that’s on the catapult frame should have six strings in it. Separate them in half, and slide the lower end of the ‘spoon’ or ‘throwing arm’ through them. Be careful not to slide too much through, the spoon needs to be able to move without scraping the floor.

DSCF0980 DSCF0981

Step 15: The spoon should hold in place, resting in the indent of the lower cross member. If it doesn’t, get someone to hold it. Either way, turn both the left and right metal wheels on the outside of the frame, simultaneously, to increase rope tension. The more you turn, the tighter the two rope clusters should get and the spoon should lift up so that it’s pushing against the upper crossmember. Turn the metal wheels until you can’t anymore, although don’t go crazy – you might tear the ropes.


Step 16: Grab the metal thing at the other end of the axle rope, and hook it on the top edge of the spoon. Find the little metal rod, and insert it into one of the axle’s other holes, to the side of the main one. Start twisting the axle away from the spoon; this will retract the spoon gradually, with the metal cog on the side stopping the spoon from releasing too early. Rinse and repeat until the spoon is once again resting on the axle.

Note: It’s just as quick to use your hands and rotate the axle manually, instead of using the metal thing. Be careful not to damage the axle cog or accidentally rip it from the wooden cover.

Step 17: Your catapult should now be ready to fire. Put something in it, aim it at your girlfriend while she isn’t looking, and pull on the secondary rope. This will release the metal claw, allowing the spoon to whack forward and fire its payload. Be slightly disappointed at the results – it’s really not that powerful. Contemplate the fact that you spent £110 on this crap, and that the game itself wasn’t as good as it should have been. Pray that the rest of it is better.

DSCF0985 DSCF0984

Congratulations! You’ve now assembled yourself a fully working (scaled) Roman Onagertm! You’re now ready to besiege a small sandcastle, and perhaps terrorise the person sitting next to you in the office. Maybe. No refunds.

Serious Business: In all honesty, it’s not a bad CE, all things considered. I still question whether it’s worth £109.99, but the Onager is pretty cool, and makes a great desk ornament. You also get a cloth map of the game-world, and a set of engraved wooden tokens & dice. This can be used to play Tabula, which is an ancient Roman version of Back-Gammon, apparently, (The inside of the box acts as the board), or Tesserae, which is a bit like that game in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest. You also get a two-player card game called The Punic Wars, which is actually pretty fun to play. As for the game itself… well, they’re already on Patch 1.2, it’s getting better bit by bit, and I have faith that it’ll get there in the end. I’m also quite looking forward to what they do with their DLC plan. Apologies for not having posted in so long! Also, in case it wasn’t clear – I did get this CE myself, with my own money. It wasn’t a freebie.


Welcome to my first post from my tablet. It’s typical really, I buy a new gadget thinking it’ll improve my mobile life, but to be honest I still before blogging and writing in general on my main PC at home. This keyboard is kind of small. Anyway – I’m not here to talk about my things, I’m here to talk about March of the Eagles, Paradox’s latest Grand-Strategy game set during the Napoleonic Era.

You can read more about my thoughts on the game in the review I did over on Strategy Informer. Essentially, it’s ok, not great, and is a far better multiplayer game than it is single-player. Seriously, I’ve been playing Paradox games for years, but I’ve been missing out not trying to take these games online more often, and March of the Eagles stripped down design and narrower focus means that everything is more immediate. As I mentioned in my review, a multiplayer session of Eagles reminds me a lot of the boardgame Diplomacy.

One of the issues I have with it though is how the game handles technological progression. Essentially, you learn more through losing. Now, I don’t mind the principle behind this – winning a fight simply reinforces the belief that your way is the right way, while losing forces you to look at how you do things and come up with a way of doing it better. In March of the Eagles, all nations get access to the same tech trees, which cover a range of areas from economy, to ship building, to Infantry and ‘Command’. The Great Powers also get an eighth tree which is unique to their nation. You earn idea points naturally every month, and if you fight and lose a lot of battles, your get bonus idea points and so can unlock ideas quicker. This does help redress the balance of power somewhat between strong and weak(er) nations, however it’s not perfect. To really earn enough idea points to make a credible difference, you essentially have to lose all your armies, lose a lot of sieges… essentially be taken to the brink of annihilation, and if you lose that badly, you’re essentially taken out of the game for a very long time.

Take Prussia, for example, the country I was playing as for the majority of the playtime for my review. I ended up fighting both France and Russia, which was essentially a fight I was never going to win. But that was ok, because I made it my mission to take as many of them down with me and psychologically wear both players down through attrition, hit and run tactics, and guerrilla warfare (or as close as you can come to it in a game like this). The thing is though there’s no scope in the game to reward behaviour like that. I really had to fight to keep my armies mobile, and alive, taking out a stack here, thwarting a siege there… in a move that was more troll than tactical, I sent one army into France via Austria just to take Paris, and then left again.

Man, this WordPress App sucks. And this keyboard is REALLY small.

I don’t mind so much that, as far as technological progression goes, there’s nothing gained through winning. Winning is the reward in itself, and your generals – whether they win or lose – get traits through combat which makes them more effective anyway. But I lost that war – 90% of my towns and forts were taken, and I lost most of my army in a stupid last ditch defence manoeuvre which even at the time I knew was a bad idea but I was pretty tired by this point, and wanted to see if I could defeat the Grand Army.

Anyway, despite losing all those sieges, and that one, last climatic battle, I didn’t earn enough points to even unlock a single idea, because I didn’t lose the “right” way. When you’re facing an enemy as numerically superior like France, and Russia to some extent, you don’t really want to get into pitched battles with them as you WILL lose. Yet because I lost it all in one go, instead of over a series of battles, I didn’t get the full extent of bonuses that losing battles get you.

My armies were in tatters, I had a massive manpower deficit to work through, and my nation was no more technologically effective than it was when I started. I was also essentially a non-entity for the rest of that session. Truces are locked in March of the Eagles, so I couldn’t declare war on anyone even if I wanted to, and I didn’t want to as I had to wait for my army to rebuild, which doesn’t happen quickly.

Forgive me if you think I’m whining – I had no problems with losing that war. I knew it was a no-win scenario and I was kind of proud at what I managed to achieve in the end – I annoyed the France and Russia players so much that I didn’t have to cede over that much territory, and they are now at war with each other because I gave each of them territory the other wanted. Revenge is sweet. The only things I was genuinely disappointed by was my own stupid decision to fight that last battle (It would have made rebuilding a lot easier if I hadn’t of done it) and the fact that I was unable to organise the other great powers into an alliance against France. Well, not one that lasted anyway – Russia started off fighting France with us, then truced out early and attacked me instead.

My issues with the technology system then are ones of design: the progression through loss thing is an interesting idea on paper, I just don’t think it was executed particularly well in this case, which is nothing in itself as there are a lot of things about March of the Eagles, as you’ll see in my review, that are not all there. It’s still a fantastic multiplayer experience though, and I’d recommend giving it a go.

Oh yeah, the Playstation 4 happened, didn’t it? I suppose I should talk about that at some point.

Today I’m going to talk to you about Grand-Strategy games. I like Grand-Strategy games. Typically they can be lighter on things like graphics and visuals, but they possess so much depth and potential options that it provides a nice counter-balance. Plus as someone with an active imagination, I also get a kick out of visualising events in my head anyway. One of the leaders in grand-strategy is a company called Paradox Interactive, and they’ve got several key franchises, each focusing on a different theme. Hearts of Iron for warfare, Victoria for Economy, Crusader Kings focuses on the human aspect of ruling a kingdom and politics, and Europa Universalis is blend of everything.

I went to see them in Iceland recently, and they’ve got a lot of great titles in their line-up for these games – expansions for Victoria 2 and Crusader Kings II, Europa Universalis IV, March of the Eagles, a Hearts of Iron spin-off called East vs. West (Which looks amazing). You’ll be able to see my coverage of these games dotted around the place, mainly on Strategy Informer, but it’s caused me to have a bit of a relapse into some of the older games – especially Victoria 2.

Victoria 2 is in itself a bit of a paradox – essentially it’s a game that focuses on the industrial revolution, so the economy system is very robust. You have a detailed population interface, with everyone having different jobs and you have to make sure you provide for all their needs. You can open different types of factories, which all require different types of resources that you can either find from within your nation or export from elsewhere. This is backed up by a very hands-on political system, where you have different parties and philosophies that your people with vote on (some political parties, for example, won’t let you build your own factories, letting the private investors do it for you). There’s also the diplomatic stage, where you compete with other great powers to draw minor nations into your sphere of influence, which gives you priority over trade. Essentially, they didn’t want this game to be a wargame, like the previous title they release – Hearts of Iron III.

The funny thing is though, as the name suggest, the game is set within the backdrop of the late 19th century colonial era. The scramble for Africa is accurately represented through a colonisation interface, there are the eastern nations you can interact with, and there were a lot of wars during this period. The 1871 Franco-Prussian War, the Prussian-Austrian War, the Zulu war in South Africa… the game’s time span stretches all the way to 1935, so you’ve got the First World War in there as well. None of these events are prescribed in the game – there are tools and systems in place for such events to happen. It’s strange then that they’d focus the game so much on economy, during a time where there was a fair share of fighting. And it’s not like you can sit back and avoid the fighting either. In order to be a great power, you need to have high prestige, a good industry, and a large army, and an easy way to get prestige is to fight wars. The military side of things though is rather tame – you can build three different types of units – Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery, and there are several variations you can get as you climb up the tech tree. (Tanks and Aeroplanes do appear very late in the game as well, although they don’t fit quite as neatly.)

Armies can be controlled by generals, and there are plenty of military techs you can research to make your military more efficient, but when it comes down to it a war is all about making sure your army stack is bigger than the other guys… like how Civilization used to be. At the time, it was a bit of a let down from the wonderful deep combat systems of Hearts of Iron III, and now, playing through it again, I can’t help but think it’d benefit loads from the developments made in March of the Eagles.

What I so like about Victoria 2 though is the long-term goals you can achieve. Crusader Kings II is good for this as well, in a way, as you can form De Jure Kingdoms and Empires eventually if you conquer/vassalise the right people. Victoria 2 has similar system in place for certain countries. Choose any of the Italian states, for example, and provided you can reach Great Power status you can work on bringing the rest into your sphere of influence (or just out-right conquer them), and then form the nation of Italy. Play as either Austria or Prussia (or any of the other German states, I think, although it’s much harder with them), and you can initially form the South or North German Confederation respectively, and then go on to create the German Empire. Austria also has the option to become Austria-Hungary, as it did in history. There are other ones as well for other key nations, some interesting, some not… Denmark or Sweden, for example can form an a-historical ‘Scandinavian’ nation, which I did once, although since the expansion it’s harder as you essentially have to fight Prussia for a particular territory, and you have to work really hard or get some powerful friends to become stronger than Sweden.

In my current play-through, I played as Prussia, with the eventual aim of forming Germany (going through a bit of a Germanic phase right now). The first step – forming the North German Confederation – is the easy part (relatively). You start with most of the key states under your sphere of influence; you only need to fight Austria (and maybe Denmark) for the rest. Provided you get your act together quickly enough, you can attack Austria before they have any chance of forming any decent alliances, and boom, North German Confederation. The hard part was forming Germany though, as the last few key provinces I needed were held by France, who is typically stronger than you, and in my game by the time I got around to looking their way, they had several key alliances which meant I would be fighting a war on multiple fronts. To my shame, I played a game where every so often, I’d start the war to see who joined which side (we shared several allies), and even play it out a bit to see how easy it would be… it didn’t work I, I reloaded to a save I made just before I declared war. Took a couple of goes and some more diplomatic shenanigans before I found a scenario that was favourable.

The ‘Great War’ of 1900-1905 (eventually, wars that contain multiple great powers are called ‘Great Wars’ in the game, to simulate the First World War)  was North German Confederation and my lackeys, Italy, Great Britain and perhaps a couple of others, versus France, Luxembourg, Belgium and Russia. It was the best chance I was going to get, and experience through fighting out the previous attempts gave me ideas to keep the Russians pinned on that front, allowing me to fully concentrate on the French. Essentially, the war boiled down to a massive dog-pile in Strasbourg, with two huge stacks going toe-to-toe for the whole war. Italy proved quite effective in fighting France in the south, while Great Britain kept the French navy at bay and also went for their overseas territories. I used what few stacks weren’t tied up to take out Belgium – which was harder than it should of been –  and support my allies whilst making a play for Paris. Eventually, the French army just broke, and it was only after I’d occupied all of their territories that they finally gave in. Three Cheers for Germany!

It was kind of interesting to watch the balance of power change after that – every nation on the losing side of a Great War has to ‘capitulate’, so they get rid of half their army, and other reparations as well. It removed France and Russia from the Great Power list completely, and at the time of wiring France is in the sphere of influence of The Netherlands, of all places. Russia is in the pocket of Austria, who I’ve just gone to war with as they’ve been sitting pretty gathering strength for too long. So far, the ‘Second Great War’ is going well for me.

All Hail the Fatherland.

I’ve been getting into my board games a bit more recently. Board games are fun… they’re like videogames, just without the load times, and they come in as just as many varieties as well. Everything is much more immediate and personal with all the players sitting in front of you, which is why Strategy-based board games especially I find a lot of fun.

I played a few growing up – some of the standard ‘kiddy’ fairs (Mouse Trap, Hungry Hippos, that kind of thing…), but also more complex ones Stratego (and later, Stratego4), RISK, Cluedo… this game my granddad had about escaping from a German castle… we even had a board game called Jeu D’affairs which was basically a game about corporate management and making money… although we were a bit young at the time to really ‘get’ it, so we kind of made up our own rules. Shame mum can’t find it anymore, would have liked to give it a go now that I’m not such a noob.

There’s a group of guys who live just down the road from me that I’ve become friends with who like their board games, so I’ve been playing with them. It’s actually kind of refreshing to have a large group of people to share a hobby with: Even when it came to videogames, I was usually the only person I knew who liked what I liked. Even though I’d go round a mate’s house every Saturday to hang out, we usually ended up playing Tekken (which I wasn’t good at) or Worms (which everyone ganged up on me for). The rise of the internet has also kind of taken something out of gaming, so despite having loads of friends (and fellow writers) that also enjoy that, it doesn’t quite feel the same. Having a bunch of guys all sitting in the living room though, drinking beer and having a round of Battlestar Galactica: The Board Game or RISK is great fun though.

What we’ve been playing a lot recently is A Game of Thrones: The Board Game (Second edition) – basically like RISK but with a load more rules. It’s an interesting one – there are up to six houses that can be played with depending on how many people you have – The Starks, The Lannisters, The Greyjoys, The Baratheons, The Tyrells and the Martells. It’s officially for three to six players, but we’ve played a game of four and a couple games of five and it’s a bit imbalanced with less people, purely due to starting conditions. The less players you have, the more factions are taken out (starting from the south and working up) and replaced with these ‘Neutral Forces’ tokens to stop people steamrolling through the map… except in most cases they aren’t that hard to overcome, so whoever is closest to those areas basically steam-rolls through the map. It allows for a relatively easy victory if the other plays aren’t paying attention.

We played our first six-player game last night (it’s been hard to get six people together up till now), and it really showed the true potential to the game. The key seems to be diplomacy, but the kind of diplomacy where you play nice and yet are still ready for the backstab that will come eventually, as there can only be one winner to the Game of Thrones. Most factions have at least one main rival, and one sub-rival to contend with, and it’s really hard to fight a war on two fronts which is where calling truces comes in handy.The layout is as follows:

The Martells in Dorne have the Tyrells in front of them in Hightower should they want to expand into the southern areas of Westeros, and they also have the Baratheons (one of two island based factions) to contend with should they decide to sail south from Dragonstone. The Tyrell’s have the Martells, obviously, but also the Lannisters to north, making expansion tricky. The Baratheons have it the easiest, as they don’t have any ‘direct’ rivals but depending on where they choose to expand, they will eventually run into someone, possibly several someone’s all at once. The Lannisters have to contend with the Tyrells from the south, but also the Greyjoys attacking by sea from the Iron Islands just off the shore to the east. The Greyjoys (the other island-based faction) probably have it the hardest, as there’s not a hell of a lot of room to grow until they come into contact with both the Starks and the Lannisters. The Starks probably have it second easiest as they only really have to contend with the Greyjoys as an immediate threat, although since they start in the weakest position almost, if they lose the initiative it could cost them as they will have little where else to go.

Seems a bit complex already, doesn’t it? You haven’t even read the rules yet… there’s a lot to take in at once as to what can do what, and where, etc… but once you know the rules, and apply that to your strategy, the game actually progresses relatively quickly. Usually. Seeing as in I’m still struggling to find things to talk about on this here blog-thing, I might follow this board game thread a bit more, talk about various games I’ve had or something… maybe even put up some ‘guides’ (from my perspective) on how to play as the various houses. We’ll see.

Hope you’re all enjoying your VITA’s by the way. Have to say, I’m tempted, but I’m not that much of a handheld gamer that I’m willing to spend all that money on everything. I’m happy scrounging the odd game for my DS at the moment.

Having watched Game of Thrones, and then read the book, this has got to be the first example that I know of where I actually prefer the televised version over the book. Being able to cover everything in ten hour-long chunks probably helps, but the TV version is such a faithful telling of the book its uncanny – almost to the point where you don’t really need to read the book.

Granted, a book being a book, there’s more detail available, but not as much as you’d think, and it only really helps in a couple of areas where the TV show didn’t make it that clear. In everything else though, I think I kind of prefer the TV show as it’s a better medium for ‘moments’ – those snippets that you always remember usually proceed with “I loved that bit when…”. Reading through those same moments in the book, they seemed stale by comparison.

It’s interesting how these series can just seemingly appear our of no-where – A Song of Fire and Ice is already on its fifth book, and has only just reached mainstream attention through the TV series, I don’t remember hearing much about it before hand. To be honest though, I’ve always been more of a Sci-fi guy, so Fantasy has never really interested me that much. Saying that, so far A Song of Fire and Ice has only light high-fantasy elements, and is for the moment firmly rooted in a more medieval setting (so, not too much magic and elves etc…).

Of course, Game of Thrones is getting its own video games as well – Game of Thrones: Genesis. It’s not a tie-in or anything, just a game set in the same universe, and it actually takes place hundreds of years before the TV show, during the earlier days of the lands of Westeros. Surprise, surprise, it’s a strategy game, so that’ll be another one for me then.

Oh, I’m on Holiday at the moment, in case you’re interested. Well, I say I’m on holiday – I’m visiting my Dad. Same thing really… I don’t really do ‘proper’ holidays. My job involves me sitting around most days, doing what needs to be done. A ‘Holiday’ for me is sitting around most days, doing whatever I feel like doing. I’ve always wanted to go on a ‘lads’ holiday with friends, but we’re so disorganized I doubt that’s ever going to happen. I grew out of family holidays a long time ago, and they just make me restless as I dislike being from my stuff for long periods of time.

Winter is coming.

This is what being type-cast must feel like. Despite working for a website called Strategy Informer – a site who’s history and content historically originated from an obvious source, I seem to be the only guy who handles the strategy genre at the moment. They’ve been others, don’t get me wrong – if you look at a list of all the strategy games we’ve reviewed recently, there’s some other people in there as well, although one of them has moved onto PR now. Others though generally have to be coerced into it, as few these days seem to want to take up strategy projects willingly. Take this one, for example:

It’s a hardcore political-grand strategy game, one of Paradox’s titles. No one’s going to claim it – it’s just going to sit there until I get around to doing it myself because that’s always what happens with games like these. In fact, Susana Graham, Paradox’s Head of Marketing and a very lovely person, once told me that all the good strategy/PC writers (amongst the larger outlets anyway) were starting to move onto other things, and not being replaced, and I can readily see her point. On the UK side, thankfully there’ still a lot of ‘old-school’ games journalists, who have more of an appreciation of PC and Strategy gaming floating about, but even magazines like GamesTM, or popular websites like lack full time staff with proper experience of these kind of things.

To be fair, this is mainly a problem the smaller or middle-of-the-road publishers (like Paradox, 1C, Kalypso etc…) have to deal with. AAA franchises get a lot more attention. Our news guy Simon, for example, is a Blizzard-nut and so did our Starcraft II review, and we have a fair few freelancers on our books who could easily handle the likes of Total War, or Command & Conquer (If we’re ever going to see that again), even Civilization. But for the rest, it’s usually me who picks them up.

Can’t complain too much – having an identifiable niche and good contacts amongst the key people in that niche is a plus to a resume, and could even be a deal-maker for the right outlet (you could almost say there’s a lack of decent PC writers in general these days, but that’s a point as fluid as the whole “PC Gaming is DEAD” phrase). I don’t mind being the ‘go-to’ guy for that sort of thing, although it does mean I play a lot of strategy games at the moment. You talk about Game fatigue in a general sense, but it can apply to specific genres as well if you play them enough. Still, it does become a problem when I end up with a game even I don’t really like. Supreme Ruler above, a game I did recently called Pride of Nations…  they’re not bad games, don’t get me wrong, but they’re very stats and management based, with a focus on the micro as opposed to macro/action. Thos games are hard to wrap one’s head around, and to be honest I’m not that much of a fan. Heart of Iron and Victoria, two key franchises from Paradox, are about my limit when it comes to grand-strategy.

At the moment, as well as writing up everything from the Ubisoft showcase yesterday (good stuff), I’ve got a review of Storm: Frontline Nation to do (Supreme Ruler, less content, but more fun) and a preview of Sengoku (Crusader Kings set in the Shogunate era of Japan). Not only that, but I hear Tropico 4 code has just come in  as well… although that one might actually get taken by someone, who know. Oh well, I like to think of it this way – I could be doing Le Tour De France  or Cars 2.

I suppose there are worst things than being type-cast – enjoy your weekend! I’m going to be too busy to enjoy mine.