10^5\,h^{-1}{\rm M_\odot}$ per particle) is very close to that of the Aquarius-A simulation at level 4 [@springel_aquarius_2008] which had a particle mass of $2.7\times 10^5\,h^{-1}{\rm M_\odot}$ in the high resolution region. This is roughly three times better mass resolution than the Millennium-II simulation ($m_p = 6.9\times
10^6\,h^{-1}{\rm M_\odot}$) used by @lee_2013. The cosmology was chosen to be the same as in the Aquarius simulation, i.e. $\Lambda$CDM with $\Omega_M = 0.25,\: \Omega_\Lambda = 0.75,\:
\sigma_8 =0.9,\: n_s = 1,\: h = 0.73$. Initial conditions were generated at $z=127$ by the code N-GenIC using the Zel’dovich approximation (written by Volker Springel) to linearly evolve positions from an initially glass-like state. This was then evolved to the present day using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gadget</span>-2 [@springel_cosmological_2005].

All simulations except BoxLo were analyzed with the (sub-)halo finding code [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">subfind</span>]{} [@subfind_2001], [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ahf</span>]{} [@gill_evolution_2004; @knollmann_ahf:_2009] and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hbt</span>]{}[@han_resolving_2011]. BoxLo was only analyzed with [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">subfind</span>]{} . A summary of our simulations is given in [Table \[tab:haloes\]]{} and details of all the halo finding algorithms we have used and a discussion of their relative merits can be found in @knebe_stateofaffairs_2013.

[ l c c c c c c c c c]{} & [Box size]{} & [Particle mass]{} & 