Talenn

JasonC said: "If the StuG were penetrated by Russian 76mm to 500m from the front (as CMBB penetration numbers, as opposed to actual penetration performance, suggest), then its price might be the right order of magnitude, anyway. But for its actual performance it is drastically underpriced even at 20-40 rarity. This is a sign its base price is off by 50% or more, or it is overmodeled, or both." I've made this same arguement time and time again. I made it when the game was first out and at various other points in the game's history. Each time, I've been shouted down. Too me, this is a GLARINGLY obvious problem. Its not that people are buying StuGs when on the defense because they are cost-effective, its that they are buying them REGARDLESS of the mission. That should be a red flag IMO. But, no...it must be OK because BTS made it that way. <sigh> Anyways, I hope they fix their point cost weighting formula to be more in line with what you've posted because the current formula does not seem to accurately reflect some vehicles performances IN GAME (where it matters). Talenn

This is basically the same issue that I brought up at the beginning of CMBB and has continued to rear it's head time and again. Why? Because I firmly believe that certain vehicles are priced incorrectly, possibly due to the 'weighting' that various stats have in the point cost formula. Let's face it...there are AFVs that we ALWAYS seem to have to fight against in certain time periods. This should be a signal that they are too cost effective. I understand the Party Line about having to have one cost for all situations instead of a floating cost. Fine. No problems there as trying to make a variable point system would result in the game never making it to release. The problem is that certain vehicles tend to make it on to the battlefield almost regardless of the situation. Almost any time I'm in the late '42s/early '43s, I fight StuGs...whether attacking or defending. If they have AFVs, its usually StuGs. That is a definately hint that they are TOO COST EFFECTIVE. When players are picking them to use in roles for which they are not historically suited because they are still the most cost effective AFVs, then there is a problem. Who wouldnt rather have 3 StuGs than 2 MkIVs and a few points left over? Its more guns, more armor, and almost as many MGs. You are basically frontally immune to opposing AFVs of the time whereas with the MkIV's, you can far more easily be taken out. Even if one StuG completely bogs and is taken out of the equation, the two remaining StuGs will still aquit themselves better vs most enemy armor and guns. Unless we are talking a knife fight, the StuG is almost always better when you consider the nearly 50% more that will present on the battlefield. Anyways, this horse is dead, Dead, DEAD. But the point is still valid. Until recently, I wasnt able to put my arguement into text. Now I can: Certain vehicles should be addressed for point balance because they are being picked (and effective) in situations where they should not be based solely on the cost in PV. Did any of that make sense? Talenn

Steve: I absolutely agree that the changing situations can make for difficult PV formulae. In fact that is one of the most compelling reasons to embrace these types of discussions rather than dismiss them. But my point is (and was with the StuGs) that at some point, you have to take a step back and see the trends. If 'x' is always being puchased (or reasonably always) or 'y' is never purchased, then you have to at least ENTERTAIN the possibility that there might be inaccuracies in the formulae. And that is not what I've seen here. What I see is basically a version of either 'it cant be done 100% accurately, so this is as good as its ever going to get' or 'well, we KNOW we are right so we arent even going to consider the possibility that collected data could change our minds'. Perhaps that is not the intention, but that is what it comes out as (and I'll admit that in some cases it is very warranted). Anyways, the point here is that unless you are stating that there is no way that the formulae can be tweaked to be more accurate, then it behooves you to try and take these types of threads as constructive criticism and use them to collect data that might eventually allow you to tweak the formulae and make them more accurate. I think there are some pretty convincing arguements here (as there were in the StuG thread) that PVs might be out of whack a bit in regards to cost-effectiveness of certain items. Instead of basically dismissing them, wouldn't it be possible to use them to possibly conduct further research into tweaking the formulae? Finally, I am aware that tweaking this game to perfection doesnt pay the bills. But this is something that I'm sure that some of the more 'senior' testers or poster would be more than glad to research and collect data on. Cheers, Talenn

You know, it all comes back to the same point I was trying to make with how cost effective StuGs were (waaaaayyyy back when the game first came out). At that point, I decided that it wasnt worth my time trying to suggest things here so I gave up, but the situation here is similar so I'll throw another $.02 into the pot. What it really comes down to is 'Why do the Point Values exist?'. It certainly isnt to balance scenarios, because as has been pointed out repeatedly, they are completely unnecessary there. So, that leaves QBs. Dont Point Values exist to provide a 'balanced' game for QBs? If so, then the PV of a particular item should accurately reflect is 'worth' on the QB battlefield completely independant of any 'historical' baggage. As has also been pointed out repeatedly, QBs do NOT even begin to simulate reality. The chances of an 'even' fight like the ones portrayed in QBs were slim and to be avoided. So, why bother holding QBs to the same 'realism' standard as scenarios? Why is it that when an item is judged (and analyzed) to be too cost effective or not cost effective enough, the canned response is 'well, because that is realistic'. It shouldn't MATTER if its realistic or not because realism went right out the door when you selected 'Quick Battle'. What else are the Point Values supposed to be doing if not to be providing some sort of mechanism for creating a 'fair' or 'balanced' game? So shouldnt they be based on how 'cost effective' the item will be when used in the manner for which they are bought...ie QBs? Anyways, this is still a touchy subject for me (hehe...does it show?). I think many people on this forum are doing the game a great disservice by constantly 'shouting down' (literally of figuratively) many folks who are trying to voice legitimate (at least to them) complaint. Talenn

Steve: That sounds really cool and is exactly the type of thing I was talking about...something to reign in the overpicked units. That seems like it might fit the bill quite nicely. It seems conceptually similar to the way SSI's old Kampfgruppe did it. You bought formation and were 'dealt' the unit types. A Panzer Battalion could be MkIIIs, MkIVs, or Panthers. It depended on year and a random factor weighted for availability and it worked quite well. Where it fell short was when, for instance, a Tank Bn would always cost 'x', but could vary so wildly in effectiveness that games could be made unreasonable. Still, it was the price of doing business and it went a long way towards people going out of their way to pick overly large amounts of armor. Here's looking forward to that system. In the mean time, I'll just stick with AI generated forces or battles drawn from a 'metagame' that my group might considering throwing together. Thanx for the sneak peak! Talenn

I actually dont play any ladder games. I just play casual pickup TCP/IP games. I never felt the need to use any special 'rules' in CMBO, we just avoided the 'rare' but cheesey vehicles in the game. Thats the problem we are having. StuGs are weed common for most of the time so buying them shouldnt be 'gamey'. But they seem so out of whack compared to their costs in many situations. Maybe its just perception (as other have suggested), but whats perceived is real. So, we haven't come up with any 'rules' that make any sense that prohibit StuGs. There just doesnt seem to be any logical basis other than how effective they are per cost. If we 'banned' them in QBs, what could you have left? Would T34s and KVs then be banned? The list could be endless and we end up with nothing but go-carts. Looking forward to someone else's though. Talenn

Steve: I've said before that text is a poor medium for communication sometimes. It fails to convey tone and inflection which are sometimes critical in understanding someone's point. I think that is the situation here and people are all debating around the same tree. I've always understood (since your first postings on this) your position on this and I accept it. I dont necessarily agree with it in full, but I do see the logic behind the decision. I was just sort of set off again by the way this discussion had turned. A lot of that, I think, can be attributed to the tone of the original poster. He came in loaded for bear and the response was someone more curt and blunt than the previous thread. FWIW, I'd still like to see some effort made to curtail 'gameyness' in force selection whether by points (apparently not), availability, or some other factor. Point cost was just an obvious, accessible target. Reigning in 'overused' vehicles could be done in a number of ways. Its my hope that discussions like this serve a purpose to show that it IS a semi-important issue to have QBs where variety occurs, and not pervasive use of some equipment (whether it be StuGs, Hetzers, Sturmtigers, KVs/T34s in 41, or whatever). Gaylord Focker: Ok, buddy...you are asking for it!! You want flames? Huh? I can do that with or without a StuG involved!!!! In all seriousness, you may have seen it as 'table pounding', but if you look, there are some additional points brought up (and addressed). I'd hardly call that the pouting demand for a change that you seem to be seeing. There is indeed 'logic' behind (at least some of)the complaints. I'm not asking you to agree, but only to see that there IS something more than 'whining' going on. I'm more interested in the rationale behind the decisions than the decisions themselves at this point. I think I've found them, but I WOULDNT have if I had sat there like a 'good little boy' and said 'Yes, BFC, this is the best ever...it cant be better...dont change a thing'. If everyone had that idea, I dont think we'd have seen half of the improvements we saw from CMBO to CMBB. Discussing 'balance' is a good thing. Debating points that multiple people (independently) observe is a good thing. In the end, change is good thing (I think everyone who has played both CMBO and CMBB would agree). But that change comes at the price of discussion and occasionally arguments. And its hard to have those discussions (and keep your temper) when someone from the peanut gallery always has to come in and insert 'quit whining'. Just my $.02 on it Talenn

Steve: FWIW, after reading back a little more carefully, I agree with what you say about the players having control to avoid certain situation. Its very true, and I am doing just that. I just found it somewhat strange that people have to avoid certain times and matchups (and very common ones...ie, the time period around Uranus) to have a 'fair' battle. IMO, thats the job of the point values. But, as has been mentioned, that would almost require a floating PV based on time period. My next question would be: Do you think this would be possible in the rewrite...let me rephrase that...do you think it is PRACTICAL for the rewrite? It doesnt have to be 'perfect' either, but a closer approximation would always be a good thing. Gaylord Focker: This is not an insult, just an observation. People like you are why these discussions always turn ugly and into flamewars. If you dont have more to contribute other than essentially 'Stop whining', dont bother. Also, if you dont care whether you win or lose, why bother entering a debate/discussion about whether certain items are cost effective and 'fair'? Very few things set people off faster than getting 'learn tactics' and 'quit whining' as a response. Talenn

Ok, first of all, for all of you not paying attention out there...NO ONE IS SAYING THE STUGS ARE UNBEATABLE. I dont believe I (or others) have ever stated that. That is NOT the issue. They CAN be killed. They DO die...Ok, I'm assuming we've cleared that up now. The point that I (and a few others) have made is that there if certain vehicles are constantly picked in QBs and are generally regarded as 'must haves' if available that some sort of factor should be added that increases the cost to make them less of a steal. Yes, I understand that across the board it is tough. Yes, I understand that MANY things factor in that adjust cost. BUT I think one of the things the 'formula' lacks is 'protection vs COMMON battlefield opponents'. Is that another name for 'fudge factor'? Yep, it sure is. And many a game designer (including myself) has found himself in the position of having to use it. But Steve's quote below sums it up: "Actually, "said vehicle" would probably be WORSE and more expensive. And that sits just fine with me" If you are content with that situation, then that explains the issue. Actual 'Cost Effectiveness' of the vehicle is not the exact target of the formula. I realize that it is an elusive target and would take time and a lot of testing to derive. I understand why you dont want to mess with it. Its a decision that I've accepted, although I dont agree with it. Thats fine. I'll play as it is and just avoid cherry picked forces. Also, FWIW, by 'player derived', I didnt mean open forum debate. (NIGHTMARE!) I meant that 'internal' testers go in and give input on what they see and how vehicles perform per cost and adjustments are made, tested, adjusted etc. If, after release, certain values are seen to be off (via mass player input..ie Puppchen and MG Jeeps IIRC), then more testing and adjustments are made. This is NOT impossible and to say that it is is just as much sticking fingers in ears and saying 'la la la'. Its an opinion. It MAY be in error, just as your can be. I can accept that. I tend to not accept that 'this is the way it is and its as good as its going to get, so we wont try alternatives.' YMMV. Again, thanx for the input, but I think its just an area that is going to have be 'agree to disagree'. There are two methodologies here and they somewhat conflict. I dont believe that either is completely wrong or right, but that a combination of both would produce the best results, although at a considerable cost of time and effort. I also understand that that time and effort wont necessarily pay the bills, so ITS not 'cost effective'. Fine, I'm a realist. I just get the fur up when I'm told that its not POSSIBLE. Talenn

Well, as the one who started the original thread, let me throw a few more pennies into the pot: Ok, IMO, a static formula is just as flawed as a 'play derived' system if used in a vaccuum (which it appears that it is...ie, no 'game experience' influencing the cost). Here's some reasoning/examples: Say, for instance, a StuG model was deployed in early 43 that had 500mm of frontal armor (somehow...who know..just an extreme example). What would your cost system say? If I read you right, it would be a VERY expensive vehicle because the costs are static, based on vehicle stats etc, and 500mm of armor would be grotesque. BUT, said vehicle would be almost NO better than the standard StuG out there in that time frame because both are still frontally immune to 95% of the opposing weapons while retaining all of the disadvantages of a turretless, MG-less vehicle with weak side armor. Do you see what I am getting at? If another version of the StuG had 70mm of armor, it would be marginally cheaper than the StuGIIIF/8 or G, and would be infinately less survivable because it COULD be frontally killed by the primary opponents. The context of a vehicle's use cant be determined for pricing (ie, scenario type, terrain, weather, etc). That much, I'll accept. But I STILL think that its very possible to adjust the formula to get a closer approximation of a particular vehicle/unit's typical combat potential. Since this is not something that CAN be scientifically derived, there has to be some human 'common sense' intervention or the whole system of having point values for QBs kind of breaks down IMO. There are always going to be 'favored' units, that much is true. But it IS more possible than people seem to believe to go in and apply some modifiers based on common battlefield matchups. As I said in my earlier post, I think its far better to err a little on the high side for some vehicles than the low side. As an example, a StuG would cost a bit more upon 'release'. That would mean that in late 44, it would more or less disappear from QBs unless other vehicles were suffering a pretty stiff rarity penalty. But I'd prefer that to the over use of StuGs in battles between Fall of 42 and say, Winter of 43/Early 44 where it begins to become outclasses or at least matched. It would at least encourage a little bit more variety in many time periods in QB play. I'm smart enough to realize that at this point, any of these discussions is really just the equivalent of banging your head against the wall. But, at least I'm not the only one seeing StuGs being constantly deployed in QBs and coming out ahead of Soviet armor while costing less. One thing that many of you are forgetting in your 'flank them' examples and whatnot, is that its the THREAT of the StuG that does most of the work. You cant KNOW that there are no StuGs around, so your armor is VERY limited in how it can support the infantry (where everyone says--correctly--that its better than the StuG). BUT, if you commit it, you can lose it without being able to hit back due to frontal invulnerability. If you dont commit, you might as well have spent to the points elsewhere. The advantage is ALWAYS on the German side here because they CAN commit the StuGs forwards (as long as they arent totally sloppy) while the Sov armor is hamstrung. That is a HUGE advantage that is only present in the artificial confines of a derived 'fair' battle. But THAT is exactly where the point values should come in and make a difference. akdavis: If the German player selects 'armor' formation, he can (I believe) spend 100% on armor---just like the Russians. That still allows them a sufficient infantry screen and nulifies the supposed Soviet advantage in armor points. Priest: Not every discussion involving point values necessarily involves Starcraft twitch crowd kiddies. It IS possible to debate and change points in a Wargame without devolving to 'my Zergling will oWnZor your Marines'. That is something this crowd falls back on an awful lot...if you want to change the system, you must be trying to make it like 'x' L337-DoOd game. Not everyone who wants to 'balance' things is a kiddie. Hope this helps clarify a few things and furthers the discussion (even as I beat my head against the wall....*whack*...*thump*....owww...) Talenn

Chad Harrison: And you probably wont see many MkIII/IVs because IMO (and probably in most people's), being frontally immune to return fire far outweighs the benefits of having a turret and being vulnerable, especially if you are paying less for the better protected vehicle. We saw the same thing in CMBO, and its 'worse' here because the StuGs are 'common' and 'realistic' compared to Hetzers which could be considered 'gamey' when overused. Talenn

Vanir Ausf B: I second that request! I thought I just hadnt figured out how to make it work yet... Talenn

redwolf: My take exactly. Its not the single action I want to see, but trends over time. I KNOW StuGs can be beaten...Tigers can be beaten, Panthers can be beaten... But what I want to see is what vehicles tend to be favored by the majority of QB players. Talenn

To quote Robert Redford aka Major Cook... "Well what did ya expect? Destroyers?"

wwb_99: Interesting. But unfortunately for the PzIV, in most actual games, engagement ranges of less than 700m seem more common. Also, the StuG will kill the T34s just as easily as your PzIVs at the same range, arent likely to be flanked at those ranges, is still immune to the T34s when the range gets down to 200, and still costs less than your PzIV...I just fail to see the logic of paying for a more expensive vehicle with the same gun that is FAR more vulnerable. Perhaps its just differences in play style, but I would wager that most people just have ingrained in their history-filled brains that StuGs dont attack as well as PzIVs. Operationally, I would agree. In GAME terms, I fail to see why that is the case in many situations. Yes, there ARE limitations to the StuG...I never denied that, buy my opinion is that those limitations are far outweighed by the MUCH better protection and with a cheaper price to boot. It seems to almost be a no-brainer decision to me. As I said above, time will tell if others begin to think the same way (especially after having their PzIVs smoked time and again while the StuGs lay there unscathed! ). Talenn