Treeburst155

The best use of early Russian Tank Hunter teams is to use them as Borg spotters. Combined with Borg ATRs, you have eliminated much of FOW. One way to get decent early war Russian inf AT capabilities is to split squads in hopes that one of the half squads will come up without molotovs. When a split is successful, you have an AT half-squad and a Borg spotter half-squad to go with your Borg Tank Hunter teams and Borg ATRs. Gamey? Who? Me?!! Treeburst155 out.

I've looked into the variable ending rather deeply. Here's what happens: At the end of the designer specified number of turns a random number between 0 and 10 inclusive is chosen. This number is how many turns the game will go beyond the designer specified number. IOW, the final decision on game length is decided at the end of the designer specified length. This means there is an equal chance of the game going any SPECIFIC number of extra turns. You should see as many games end with zero extra turns as you see end with 10 extra turns. What it amounts to is a +/- 5 situation. If the designer chooses '40 turns variable', he's really choosing 45 turns +/- 5. Chances of the game ending on or BEFORE a given turn: Designer specified - 9% +1 Turn - 18% +2 Turns - 27% +3 Turns - 36% +4 Turns - 45% etc...... Odds are you will get a few extra turns. Notes: Variable ending games have nothing to do with flags changing hands near the end of the game. Games less than 40 turns in length will have a maximum number of extra turns equal to 25% of designer specified length. A 28 turn game can have, at most, 7 extra turns. Treeburst155 out.

Hiding was your main problem, I think. You can't hide and spot well at the same time. There is a noticeable difference in spotting ability between troops who are hiding and those who aren't. Vineyards are like brush as far as cover and concealment. Treeburst155 out.

erased due to faulty reasoning Treeburst155 out. [ March 12, 2004, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

If th StuG is twice as likely to bog as my Panther, I would get meaningful numbers twice as fast.....I think. Even so, I'd still need about 250 tests. It's a time consuming test, even clicking through it quickly. I've seen enough. I say run 'em hard through the mud if speed is preferred for some tactical reason. If you're not in a hurry, move slow to knock a LITTLE BIT off your bog chances. As for the time vs distance question which got me started on this testing, have my tests shed any light on that? I don't think so. Time would have to be constant, rather than distance, as in my first test. In fact, I don't think we can determine the time/distance question by testing. We would have to total all the time tanks managed to remain unbogged during a rather long, fixed time period. We would have to know the time of immobilization. Even then, how do we know distance wasn't what triggered the bog? I'll bet it's distance, because that makes more sense. Testing bogging is a PITA. I'm satisfied that "move" speed reduces chances of a bog; but not enough to prevent me from moving fast if I think there is a good tactical reason to do so. Treeburst155 out.

Out of 100 attempts to move the Regular Panther D at "fast" speed, over mud, a distance of 1,000 meters, there were 26 Immobilizatons. The same test at "move" speed saw 22 Immobilizations. I think the stats pros would say this is a statistical dead heat. With this test I have tried to determine the odds of becoming immobilized before travelling 1,000 meters. I have tried this for "Move" and "Fast" speeds. The difference in the immobilization chances for the two speeds cannot be determined with confidence without running the test about 500 more times, because the difference is not large. An alternative would be to double the attempted distance, which would double the odds of immobilization for both speeds, therefore doubling the difference between these odds, making the difference more perceptible. I lose either way however. I either do 500 one kilometer tests, or 250 two kilometer tests. I've a hunch the difference in immobization chance between the two speeds per kilometer attempted is about 10% in my specific test. However, that 10% may represent a 50% increase going from "move" to "fast". Even so, the bog chances are low enough at "move" that the 50% increase is not much of a concern IMO. I'll be moving fast over the mud from now on. Treeburst155 out.

You're right, Redwolf. I should run them until they cover a set distance or become "Immobilized". I think that's what I did before with my CMAK/CMBB comparison. Treeburst155 out.

Trying to determine the margin of error in my test...... If bogging is a function of time, my test should have shown some difference, if one exists, between "Move" and "Fast". The test ran for 200 minutes (20 Panthers x 10 minutes)at each speed. If there was a respectable difference between Fast and Move, based on time, I should have seen SOME difference in results, I think. If bogging is a function of distance, either the "Fast Movers" got lucky, or the "movers" were unlucky. How many kilometers would I have to move a Panther to determine Immobilizations per kilometer fairly accurately? It's a tough test to get a grip on. Treeburst155 out.

Here's my test results. I'm not sure we learn anything from this. There could be a luck factor involved. 20 Regular Panther Ds travel a straight line through solid "mud" for 10 minutes on flat terrain at level 7 in CMBB. The test was run at "fast" speed, then again at "move" speed. Fast Speed results: 18,260 Panther Meters were traversed in 10 minutes. There were 3 Immobilizations, with one unit in a "Bogged" state at the end. Move Speed results: 14,280 Panther Meters were traversed at the end of 10 minutes. There were 3 Immobilizations, with TWO units in a "Bogged" state at the end. The fast movers did better! They covered 4,000 meters more in the time allowed, while suffering the same number of immobilizations. Did the 20 "Movers" get unlucky; or did the 20 "Fast Movers" get lucky? The Fast Movers had the same Immobilizations per minute, and less per meter travelled. Judging by this test, there is no bogging related reason to move slowly through mud. Something is wrong with my test. Maybe I don't have enough samples. I probably need to run several hundred Panthers through the course for each speed. As for CMAK, I did a comparison test between CMBB and CMAK shortly after CMAK was out. I started a thread on it. Bogging in CMAK is noticeably less likely to occur than in CMBB. Perhaps I can dig up the thread. I had some good numbers for that one. Treeburst155 out.

Alright, that does it. I'll have to test this out again. The question is, which game to test it in? CMAK bogging is not nearly as bad as CMBB (although dirt roads may be worse). I'll go with CMBB because the knowledge is more useful in that game. Let's see what I can find out. I'm thinking up a good time vs distance test now. Treeburst155 out.

Thanks, Moon! Sergei, I hadn't noticed that. A nice little gameplay tidbit. Thanks! Treeburst155 out.

Tar, Are you positive about that? My testing awhile back seemed to indicate otherwise. It was distance, not time, that bogging seemed to be tied to. I seem to remember slow moving units getting further on average without bogging. I could be wrong though. If you're POSITIVE, thanks for info. If you're not positive, I'll have to run some tests to answer the question with certainty. These little things must be known. Treeburst155 out.

Bumped because it's necessary. Really, it is.......necessary. Treeburst155 out.

Pure coincidence, Sand Digger. There is no movement order you can give that will get a vehicle "unstuck", or even increase the chances of it freeing itself. It is all just luck. Treeburst155 out.

Yes, the victory level is distorted in the case of German fortifications; but, you can reduce or eliminate this distortion by increasing total VL value on the map until you get back to the original ratio (VL points to Force points). Redwolf mentioned this in his first post. This isn't a perfect solution to the distortion; but it will help. I sure wish you guys who understand CM scoring, who talk about "distortion of victory levels", would help me out in my CMAK threads. I'm trying to get designers to understand that they need to have more than a few hundred VL points on the map in the larger battles. Redwolf has tried in the past to no avail. I don't think designers understand the relationship between VL points and casualty points, and how this relationship affects the score. Joachim, Once again I meet you in a thread. Not only do we like the same types of scenarios, we both have an appreciation for how the scoring system works. We really should do some PBEM sometime. One of us picks the scenario AND edits the VL values and the time limit appropriately (because these things are almost always screwed up), the other picks his side. I'm always ready for a nice, giant PBEM. So what if it takes a year to play. Treeburst155 out.

Yes, soft ground increases chance of bogging. Dirt roads are prone to bogging too, at least if the conditions are "wet". I'm not sure if "damp" dirt roads are very bog-prone. Move slowly over wet dirt roads. Treeburst155 out.

Hehe... Threads like this take a great deal of time and thought. I've devoted all the time & thought I think the subject is worth. Now, if I didn't have the editor, I'd never let this subject die. Treeburst155 out.

Rereading this thread, I think I've done about all I can to get my point across. I see spots where I could have been a little more tactful; but nothing that should get anybody really riled up is obvious to me. I'm done with this thread now. The message sinks in, or it doesn't. Like I said above, I can always apply the proper value to VLs myself before playing a scenario. I already have to do that with time limits anyway; although I've noticed a distinct improvement in this area of late. Happy Designing!! Treeburst155 out.

Panther Commander, I don't think you read my last post. When you do, I'd appreciate your comments on it. What you have written above is 90% irrelevant to my latest comments. As for designers, I think sometimes they need to come down off their high horse and give some thought to what THOUGHTFUL players of their work think. A defensive attitude and a closed mind benefits neither player or designer. Read my post above, PLEASE. Treeburst155 out.

Panther Commander wrote: "Players seem to think that you have to win every battle you fight with a Major Victory. I feel sorry for that attitude. I am here to learn and enjoy my hobby. That means I can and do lose. I'm getting better and that is my goal. Not to win every fight but to get better. That includes in scenario design." I think the requirements for any given victory level should be the decision of the scenario designer. If the requirements for any one level of victory are carefully thought out, and the appropriate values applied to the VLs, all other levels of victory will fall into place. This is because the BFC scoring system is pretty darn good IMO. I'm discussing 2 player scenarios here, always. What I see in many, if not most, scenarios is a very low VL value to unit points ratio. I see this even in scenarios designed specifically for 2-player play. The effect of these low VL values on gameplay is significant. Let me explain. Those who play CM with little interest in the final outcome don't care about how many points the VLs are worth. The value of the VLs will not affect their approach to a scenario. A VL is a VL to them. They will attack with vigor if that is what they are supposed to do. When this same player wins 56-44 (a draw)after taking all the VLs and killing his opponent at 1:1, he thinks nothing of it. He had the high score. He won. However, there is another type of player, and we are MANY, who like to see performance graded a little better than "high score/low score", all within the 60-40 range. Fortunately, CM has been designed to accomodate us. All that is required is the proper amount of VL points on the map in two-player scenarios. What happens with valuable VLs is that point conscious attackers become highly motivated to attack. If the VLs are only worth one tenth of the casualties likely to occur, the battle turns into a half-hearted probe. Greater VL values make for better gameplay for the point conscious player(and we are many). At the same time, it has no ill effects on the first type of player who doesn't care about the final outcome. Everybody can be made happy! One reason I think we see such a low ratio of VL points to unit points in scenarios is because designing this way gives the illusion of balance. There are so few Victory points on the map, that they have little impact on the outcome. Playtesting will yield results within the 60-40 range virtually all the time. The designer then declares the scenario balanced, even though one side took his objectives entirely (the VLs), with reasonable casualty levels in 3 out of 4 playtests. The designer should not look at playtesters' scores to determine balance. He should look at achievement of objectives, and casualty ratios. In fact, playtesting can be done without VLs if the VL locations are known (labelled) for the testers. (Speaking two-player always) Now, if we take any scenario, and triple the VL points, have we affected balance? NO!! The units are the same. The objectives are the same. The terrain is the same. What we have done is create a situation where the various LEVELS of victory can come into play. If the attacker takes all his objectives, he will get at least a well deserved Minor Victory. If he does so with a minimum of casualties, he may get a Tactical or even a Major Victory. The difference between a good performance and an excellent performance is now reflected in the outcome. This is not true if the VLs have little value. Playtesting of scenarios with valuable VLs will show wider swings in the score. If the scenario is fairly balanced, the average test game will be around 50-50. So, we have not affected balance by increasing VL value. We have just allowed for wider spreads to occur. We have evaluated players' performance better. We have increased the "resolution" of the final outcome. Tactical mistakes are more severely punished. We have separated a generic 55 point draw-win into Minor, Tactical, Major, and Total wins. This makes the scenario more interesting, not to mention the added interest generated by a point conscious attacker who sees 3,000 VL points to go for, rather than a few hundred spread around the map. So, all I'm saying in this thread is that good scenarios can be made better by the proper application of value to victory locations. I'm not trying to say anything else about scenario design. By giving VLs an appropriate value, you are only changing your scenario for the better. There is no downside....not even any ill effects on balance. All you will get is more aggressive attackers, and a better final evaluation of performance. I have the editor. I can alter VL values to my heart's content. I just thought this thread might help designers make better scenarios for those who don't mess with scenarios in the editor. Hopefully readers of this thread can understand the point I'm trying to get across here. Treeburst155 out. [ March 11, 2004, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

LOL!! You're too much, Grog Dorosh. So, have you bought the book yet? I'll expect a full book report with your next turn, which is due several days ago. I'd suggest getting the book special express air mailed via long range cannon so you can get cracking ASAP. Treeburst155 out.

suicidal.....uninhabitable....prone to failure...bloody awful...excruciatingly painful...unlikely to succeed...pointedly preposterous...impossible...problematic....horrific....catastrophic....friggin' crazy...FUBAR...guaranteed to fail...hellish...darn dangerous...tactically challenging...under the gun...decidedly disastrous Does this help? [ March 10, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

suicidal.....uninhabitable....prone to failure...bloody awful...excruciatingly painful...unlikely to succeed...pointedly preposterous...impossible...problematic....horrific....catastrophic....friggin' crazy...FUBAR...guaranteed to fail...hellish...darn dangerous...tactically challenging...under the gun...decidedly disastrous Does this help? [ March 10, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Maybe that's why the Grant turret front is somewhat resistant to the mighty 88 at moderate ranges in the game? Treeburst155 out.

Rune, I think we're on the same page here. Throughout this thread I've been writing with two-player scenarios in mind ONLY, because that is all I am interested in. My bad, I should have made the two-player factor clear from the start. The VL planner is of limited use in any scenario designed for play against the AI. Mikey D, Any dirty tricks and surprises you want to put into a scenario is fine with me, as long as you are not playing a joke on me by giving me an absolute no-win situation. What makes a good scenario good? That is a matter of opinion. What makes any two-player scenario better? Thoughtful consideration of the values placed on VLs. Treeburst155 out. [ March 10, 2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]