Wreck
-
Posts
499 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Wreck
-
-
-
Interesting stuff. Like Rex, I went and calculated bang/buck figures for all the arty using Peter's data. The results are interesting.
First off, all rocket arty is head and shoulders above normal arty. Germans get about 60 bang/point for all rockets. With normal guns, they get 36-40. However, the large dispersal of rockets should easily account for this. They are always a gamble.
Next, there is a slight decrease in bang/buck as caliber increases. This is not a large effect, though. For instance the American arty up to 105 gets 35 or 36 bang/buck; the big guns get 32. All in all, perhaps a 10% drop. This probably accounts for the ability of the larger calibers to affect armor.
Finally, VT is costly. Its bang/buck is maybe 3/4 or 4/5 that of normal arty. This may well be worthwhile, though, given the greater performance -- no way to know just given the numbers.
Perhaps the most important thing to note, is that there seems to be little or no bang/buck cost for lowered time to target. Another aspect of artillery that seems to not be charged for is firing rate. What this translates into is: take big mortars. This is especially true for Germans, with 3-4 minute waits for support. Waiting 2 minutes with Americans is not that bad, and they can seriously contemplate taking any arty they want.
So, the rule of thumb for mechanics should be: always load up on the large caliber mortars (120mm, 107mm).
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The HQs wouldn't stay hid and were also taken out early, removing those bonuses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here's a tip for you.
HQ units should almost always have an ambush point set up very near to themselves, so that they don't fire unless close assaulted. And they should usually also have "hide" orders.
If their platoon has expended most of its ammo and/or gotten shot to bits, then you should stop hiding them.
-
M8 GMCs are definitely one of the bargains in CM. I had not seen them for a while at TH but then of recent people have started talking about them again.
Swamp was telling me the other day about a 2000 point armor battle he won as Americans, taking a M8 swarm -- 18 M8s, no other armor. The enemy had a King Tiger, some panthers, etc. 5 ubertanks in all. That meant that Swamp could afford to lose 4 roaches for every tank he took out. He ended up losing 10, IIRC, killing all 5 ubertanks. 580 points lost vs 1000+ lost by the German. That'll win a battle.
In large part this just shows the weaknesses of supertanks. They have good performance, but they don't have good price/performance except perhaps against other supertanks. Swamp's opponent would have been much happier had be bought hetzers. For the 1000 or so spent, he could have had 12, which would have been sufficient to prevent the M8s from getting easy flank shots.
So that's my main way of dealing with M8s. Hetzers. They are not as good against infantry, but they are much better against tanks.
Another tank that is worth considering is the StuH42 (late). With slightly sloped 80mm front armor, it can be just barely penetrated by the M8's c rounds; but with a favorable angle from terrain it can take them. It is of course great against infantry. And unlike the Hetzer, it is available under Fionn's 75.
In heavy woods, I agree with Agua: schrecks can help. But your own armor (especially StuHs) can do much the same thing as the Americans.
In reasonably open terrain, cheap guns are probably the best way to deal with M8 swarms. In particular the 75mm inf gun is a bargain at 33 points, and if the American doesn't take M8s you still get to shred his infantry for cheap.
Tecumsah reports my views pretty accurately. Especially in a more open and hilly situation, I like having a TD to deal with long range threats, including side shots opened up by maneuvering M8s. Priests are always optional.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
TH is wide open, no-holds-barred, slug-fest where every weakness in the CM model is exploited to the fullest by the highest ranked players.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would say, rather, that any weakness in the CM engine will be exploited by the TH players. By this I mean that any in-game aspect of CM that we know how to exploit, we will.
However, in my experience (which is large), almost all TH players are very flexible about accepting force selection limits. I, for example, always disallow flame vehicles and flak trucks in my games. I have never had anyone say this is not acceptable. Similarly I tend to play in July 44 (before PzIV/70 and before VGs).
People even play with Fionn's 75 at TH, though this is less common. Certainly people know what it is (and know what to pick), and I doubt it would be much of a problem to get a game.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Players from outside the TH "family" routinely get torched when playing against the top tier of THers.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is there any evidence of this, or is it just a fable we like to tell ourselves?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I developed the concern primarily by playing German SMG equipped infantry.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As did many others. In competitive play (by which I mean: my experience at TH
it is well known that the SMG types are superior. Because of that, and the fact that Germans are slightly superior anyway, most games at TH avoid allowing SMG infantry. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
My initial diagnosis of the problem was point costs, that the SMGs were just too cheap, that greater odds would be needed to balance them. In fact, SMGs cost only the same as rifles, while in practice outperforming them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you were right -- SMGs are too cheap. The prices are supposed to reflect CM-power and not any real world thing. I agree with BTS that tweaking the prices is worse than fixing the engine; but tweaking prices is easily done and could even be in a patch. Also it is easily undone in the event that they do fix the engine.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
BTS more or less dodged on the ammo issue, but then responded with the claim that realistic rarity factors in CM2 will make everything better, and that this will be more practical than point tweaking.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think rarity is going to be a solution to the problem. It will help, perhaps, but the underlying problem is in the modelling, namely, the ammo/firepower issue that IMO you correctly identify.
Another inflated aspect of SMGs' CM power that bears analysis, is that of human factors. In the real WWII, getting a platoon to close with the enemy to grenade range was nowhere near as easy as CM makes it. Look at BloodyBucket's dad: "The idea of closing with the enemy and overwhelming him with SMG fire had few advocates in his little circle." Not necessarily because it was a bad tactic from the POV of the battalion commander. It was merely a bad tactic from the POV of the men. In that sense, my earlier facetious suggestion that all the extra SMGs were in armories may well hit close to the mark: it may be that GIs always had the option to take an SMG but they never did, for fear of being noticed by officers who might then order a charge into close range.
I think that in CM we see more grenade-range battles than there were in the real thing. If that is so, then it is also going to inflate the power of SMGs relative to rifles, in a completely "historical" manner if we only think about firepower, ammo, range, etc, and not human factors.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
My reaction in the meantime has been to play vanilla German infantry types - Security and Rifle 44-45 types in particular.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
BTW, this happens even in competitive play, if you restrict Germans to Heer, and play pre-Nov 44. In games where mortars are not useless, security companies will be chosen; otherwise rifle-44s with extra platoons as security. Another thing which happens in competitive play is allied players want to be allowed to mix paras with regulars, especially playing brits. This makes for a pretty even battle IMO, albeit, somewhat gamey since if you are allowed any paras you typically take all paras (slanting the thing in the opposite direction).
Your other proposed solution (ammo tweaking) would be better. But it cannot easily be used in competitive quickbattles.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
So far, I have received a few passing comments in support of either idea (very much welcome) and an enourmous amount of flak, static, distraction, and changing of the subject.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
On the net you can never expect as much confirmation as criticism. This is natural. You know this, or should. "Me too" posts (like this one) always read as pretty lame.
For scenario designers, I think tweaking the ammo is a fine idea, as well as mixing types of infantry for the allies.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
In answer to ASL Vet, I am interested in his theory of the use of Allied SMGs. Does he think they were used as crowbars? Hoes for kitchen gardens? Ad hoc wheat scythes, perhaps?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A possible explanation is that they simply spent all the war in armories. Not that I buy that, mind, but it is a possibility.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Do I want gamey crew rushes with SMGs? No, certainly not. But I do think when gamey German SMG rushes sweep onto a mortar team (et al), they would not defend themselves with strong language, as they do in CM today.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think they should make a special morale category, rather like "!", perhaps shown as "!!". "!!" infantry would be disallowed all move types except crawl and withdraw. Crews bailing out of AFVs or fleeing a gun would get this status. The point here is that in essence these guys would (and should) feel that they are out of the fight. In real life you would not see a tank crew charging the front to hold an objective, but rather headed rearward.
All in all though, a very interesting thread and good research. I am surprised how many people don't seem to get it.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
buildings in CM do not explode. The shock-wave you see on the screen is dramatic effect only and does not inflict any damage on anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I realize that. "Explosive buildings" was a reference to the fact that buildings can be easily knocked down, and that such knocking has a terrible effect on infantry inside. The buildings might as well be made of gunpowder.
The fact that you can drop a building with a handful of HE, is to my mind the largest problem with CM as a simulation. In the real war, buildings were not shunned as highly dangerous deathtraps. Quite the opposite. Similarly, an enemy-held village in the real war was a tough nut to crack. In CM, a platoon of average tanks can level a village in minutes.
-
As other have mentioned: avoid Shermans. Sometimes a Jumbo is nice for dealing with guns. But for competitive play, mostly you want to buy M8 cockroaches. In a typical 1250 sort of ME, the German might get 3 hetzers. You get 6 M8s, or maybe 4 and a priest, jackson, or hellcat.
Tactically, you want to avoid dueling at all times, and in fact early on you want to avoid most anti-tank risks. The only hard targets you should actively pursue early on with an M8 are halftracks and other slightly armored vehicles, which you can kill with a .50 cal burst. Once you are out of .50, though, just focus on infantry.
Use area fire against the german infantry. (Obviously you need to know where it is, which is what your own infantry should be doing.) Run away from the hetzers as they manuever to try to get you in their sights. M8s automatically scuttle back from confrontation with serious German armor, which means this is usually fairly easy.
Once you have used up a good portion of your HE, then you are ready to stalk enemy tanks. This should always be done with at least two tubes, be they M8s, zooks, guns, etc. The idea is to use one target somewhere to draw the attention of the German tank, while scooting around to the flank with a second gun. Your turret can be a nice advantage versus an SP gun especially.
The US infantry is relatively weak. Big squads, and lots of junk in each company. I tend to either buy no companies at all, or just buy one (for the company commander) even if I could afford two or more. This leaves the support column free for the purchase of guns (if a wide open map), or generally just more points for M8s and arty.
Regarding arty, my rule of thumb is always to take as much of the largest caliber mortar arty I can get. This works for all of the nations. So with the Amis I load up on 107mm mortars. I only take 81mm offboard if playing with arty limits, or for attacks (where they are needed to place smoke).
Regarding on-map mortars, other than the 76mm they are all junk and should be avoided. I occasionally do use 81mms, though I think over time I have come to avoid maps where guns are dominant. If you are going to play in such a map as Americans, some 81mm might be reasonable to deal with enemy guns.
Mapwise, villages favor Americans, since they tend to have lots more HE than Germans do. I dislike playing in villages, though, since the explosive buildings are so unrealistic. Maps which favor guns (i.e. guns can see objectives from setup), favor Germans with their awesome 75mm inf. As Americans I therefore tend to like to play with moderate woods, to cut down the lines of sight sufficiently so that the Germans cannot win with the wall of guns. Light woods might be sufficient on a flat map; I don't know.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
If player B decides not to make any changes, does player A still get to change sides? If so, what is the point of making him pick a side to start with? Why not just have player B bid and player A pick a side?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since Yo is being his normal translucent self, I offer my interpretation. I had a bit of question about this too, until I reread the rules:
"You don't have to change any settings, but if you do the player that picks side can change his mind after you alter the biddable parameters."
(Emphasis mine.) At least with the emphasis where I put it, I think it is fairly clear that if player B does not mess with the biddables then player A is stuck.
Hey Ben, I just looked at the brackets -- we are up first. It should be a blast!
-
Another note about the TH system. I agree with Treeburst and others who have pointed out that it is still young, and that the ratings are still settling, and therefore there is a minor problem for email players.
But at the same time the relative youth of the system opens up possibilities. If you want high relative rank, you can get it. Each win is worth perhaps 10 points on average, depending on win level of course. So if you play 10 games and win all 10, you will get to at least 1100 rating. That's good enough to be ranked #19 or so. With 20 games, all wins, you can get to 1200, or #8. If you are pretty good, and just stick to playing newbies or players with low ratings, you can rack up wins pretty easily. An exemplar here might be Sergeant Huang, who with but 16 wins (and zero losses), holds the 8th rank. I have never seen him, so I bet he is an email player.
I think most people are playing for much more than the ranking or rating, though. A bit part of it is just that it is good fun.
IMO one of the great things about TH is that anyone can play the highest rated players there pretty easily. The only one I have had any problem playing at all is von, and that's only because he is in Denmark and therefore our evenings never align. But I have still played him two and half times.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
But players new to the ladder are not the only ones with a score of 1000 and being more dangerous. In my case I would tend to rate me as more dangerous than my score implies, because my score is ruined by playing top players almost exclusivly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just a note on how I do things, which might be food for thought. For players with a lot of games played, rating is the best stat. Second is opponents' rating. For those with only a few, rating does not mean that much yet; won-lost is more important. However, just as important is the opponents' average. Redwolf here, for instance, has a 1014 rating, with 1153 opponents. Of course he only has 9 games played, another thing to look at. That means it might just be luck... but probably not. This is an opponent likely to be better than his rating.
Regarding a true newbie at 1000: even the best of these is unlikely to have seen all the tricks of the trade that one needs to deal with at TH. For instance I am not going to spend the time with an unknown playing anything but a smallish meeting engagement; I know how to play an ME because I have played many of them. But one has to learn how to play MEs. I don't fear such opponents. Maybe I will when I get up to 1800 or something and have to get a major or lose points... but... I doubt it.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:
In all the games I played on tournamenthouse ... I have up to now seen one Panther, as the only AFV of an assault defender.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are right in that you won't see that many Panthers at TH. But for the wrong reason. Panthers are not as good as PzIV/70 for most things (CM does not model turrets in a very helpful way, but it does charge you for them). At TH you see a lot of 70s against brits. Against Americans, Hetzers are all you need. I have seen scads of both of these tanks, and rarely much of anything else.
That's what people who know use at TH. Not panthers per se. But the point Jason is making about uparmored tanks still holds. It is no coincidence that these two chosen ones out of all those on offer, are uparmored. Both can withstand frontal 76mm, even tungsten at longer range or with a hull-induced armor angle increase. That's powerful stuff; it means you can duel practically any allied tank and win. You can kill them, they can't kill you.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
About half of the people take extreme choices .... They are not historical and don't have a problem with it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's me. But just because I play the game as it is, doesn't mean I cannot imagine or want the game to be something else.
I am helping Yobobo work on an automated unit chooser which may help add some historicity to TH play.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The other half runs around in StuG and StuH. Because it is a nice cost-effective AFV, especially if you have to use it very carefully and rarely stick its nose out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
StuH and StuG are the best tanks available in short-75 games. That's why you see them. But the principle remains the same: they have the best front armor available, and are cheap. They at least can stand up to 57mm and 75mm, so the armor is by no means useless.
I have only seen pzIVs (not 70s) in one game that I recall, out of 80 or so played. They died, horribly surrounded by my American ubertanks, M8 cockroaches. (Another horrible affront to historicity.)
-
Steve, your statements in response to Jason's about what the common wisdom is about CM are, in my experience, wrong.
I checked the Rugged Defense page you listed, and I see no way to get axis/allied won/lost there. How did you get that? As for why that is, I suggest that perhaps they are either playing short-75 a lot, or doing a lot of allied attacks. Both of these even the playing field. Any RD members know better?
As for a ladder I do know something about, at TH you would be laughed at in the chat if you asserted that Germans were not superior. And of course, immediately challenged -- we are always looking to pick up a win. I know for a fact, having chatting with them, that the top six players on that ladder think that Germans are easier. These six have a combined total of almost 500 games played. I would imagine anyone who has played more than a handful of games at TH would think the same thing. I have heard several times a player being dissed by someone saying, "oh, he only plays Germans".
There was serious discussion recently of having the Germans play down 10% as a balancing provision. Some people do that. Most disallow SMG infantry and just accept that Germans are easier. I try to play allies against low rated opponents to handicap a bit.
You stated earlier in this thread that you don't cherry pick, and that you play with fixed forces. Is it possible that this has biased your impression of CM? I had the impression you have played most of your CM with canned scenarios or quick battles against other grogs. Well, this is IMO the root of our differences. I am a mechanic. I play a system, and play to win. I cherry pick the best force I can get, every time. There are many other players like me. We all know the Germans are superior to the allies in quick battles.
I invite you to come to TH sometime and get abused. Just look at that guy who recently learned the truth about Sd7/2s. The truth about SMGs is out there, and I would be happy to educate you. 1500 ME, Nov 44, overcast, fixed forces, me Heer. Sd7/2s forbidden
. You choose your force and the rest of the QB settings. -
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:
for the observer I usually choose a HQ with extra combat, not extra command. A regular mortar with a normal HQ has difficulties to hit a vehicle or a gun. A veteran mortar or a 1+ command HQ raise this noticable, in my opinion one of them is required to make mortar fire effective against targets other than infantry.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
At some point I plan to test this. With the 76mm you have the ammo for targets other than guns. With 81mm you don't, IMO.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
To several people: having an empty mortar knocked out still has a noticeable effect on victory level, since you loose the points the unit costs and maybe even the crew. For a veteran 81mm mortar that can add up to 75-80 points if the crew is killed and even more if the crew is captured. That approches the value of a small flag.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What? 80 points no way. A vet 81mm costs 33 points. That's the most you risk, barring capture, and even then it is 66. Yes, it is worth going for any unit if you can do so cheaply.
However, unless your opponent is playing badly, it is usually hard to kill his mortars before they fire (76mm excluded) since they have so little ammo. After they fire your arty is best spent elsewhere. And after they are out of ammo, they should move back to the rear and be prepared to exit, to avoid any raids into the rear by the enemy.
-
Steve, I must confess my frustration here. Even though you have assigned specific values to every unit in the game, you argue in essence that it cannot be done. There is no representative force/map/situation/etc, or set thereof, you argue. Therefore any experience I have, or anyone else has for that matter, is immaterial to the prices.
So how could I possibly ever convince you that any price in CM is wrong?
And yet... some of them are. I feel like the scientist here: "And yet... it moves!"
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Survivability is NOT the most important price consideration.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I should hope not. But neither did I imply that it should be. I was talking about rating two classes of guns, one of which survives easily since the enemy cannot see it, the other which does not. And I was saying that this difference is important for price, in that the number of men used in the highly survivable type of gun matters little by comparison to the number of men in the type of gun which gets major abuse.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
[Guns are more effective than mortars]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is true. All that this tells us, though, is that guns should cost more than mortars -- and generally they do. It tell us nothing about whether or not the same formula can successfully rate guns and mortars.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The fact of the matter is that mortars were more common on the battlefield than artillery. They made up a part of the standard infantry formation of every major nation in WWII. Artillery was very rarely organic to low level infantry formations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am aware of this. In fact, as I read it, the use of infantry guns was dropped over the course of WWII, exactly because mortars were better. This reality one would not learn from CM.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If we price them upwards we are basically screwing with historical reality.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think I have argued that mortars should be made more costly. To the contrary. I have asserted two things regarding cost-effectiveness of mortars:
(a) 76mm are incredible bargains, way out of line with other mortars
(
CM mortars, for the price, suck. They are only cost-effective for one, very specific role: taking out enemy guns.So what do I think you should do? Here are two options:
(1) Special case the 76mm to make it more expensive. This is the least resonant change, but also the kludgiest.
(2) Reduce all mortars except 76mm in price somewhat. This should be performed in a clean, systematic way -- make a formula for mortars, similar to that for guns, but which weights ammo more, crew size less, and tacks on some sort percentage surcharge for the ability to do indirect.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I think you are overrating mortars, or are at least not keeping them in the larger context of the game itself. We are not going to screw with this system of pricing in any fundamental way. It works, and it works well. Not perfect, but I also do not agree that it is broken to the extent that major reworking is necessary. And that is, in fact, what you are asking for.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Changing one price is not major reworking. Changing the formula for mortars would end up changing the prices of all mortars, which is about, what, 6 units? That's not really very major either.
Now, changing all the prices of things that I think are mispriced -- that would be a major undertaking. That's an interesting thing to talk about, but really I see no reason (nor hope) of trying to discuss stuff like prices for hetzers, if we cannot even agree on something that seems as evidently out of whack as the price for the 76mm. In other words, why bother to discuss the relatively small things when we cannot even agree on the large things?
-
Steve, you ask if your subjective experience is not equally as important as mine. Obviously, it is. In fact, yours is more so, since mine might influence the Game if I whine hard and long, whereas your own influences you (and thus the Game) regardless of what I do.
You assert that you have lost mortars to counter battery or small arms fire. So have I. But that is not the question. The question is about the difference in rates between towed guns and mortars. In your experience, are mortars significantly more likely to be killed in a game than guns? In your experience, do mortars fire a significantly higher percentage of their total ammo, on average, than guns do?
I have a hard time imagining that your answers to these questions will not be yes. I suppose you might think that the difference in rates is not significant.
Here's my experience. I would guess that perhaps 95% of my mortars make it to the end of the game. Perhaps 30% of my guns do. That difference is huge!
My mortars which survive fire 100% of their HE, every time. Often they finish with a few smoke rounds, but let's ignore smoke. The ones that die might average 40% shots fired; it can happy pretty randomly. All in all I get something like 97% of all mortar shells bought fired. For guns, the ones that live don't alway get 100% fired, since sometimes they are positioned badly, or I open up too late. But I would guess a high amount, maybe 80% usage. The ones that die, usually die after just a few shots. Some live a few turns. They might average 20% usage. So in total I am getting something like 38% ammo usage for guns. That, again is significantly different than the rate for mortars.
If your experience is anything like mine, then you should understand why I am arguing that the same price equation should not apply to both mortars and guns.
-
Steve, you criticize the idea of objective values for units. It is true that unit values will vary depending on the exact details of where (terrain) and how (tactics) they are used. And also the problem of what surrounds them -- other friendly units, and which enemy units exist. The "how", however, should not be an issue. As I said before, they should be priced according to good tactical use. I did not make it clear that I was talking only about how they are used, and not talking about where they are used. (I thought the example of backing into battle would clarify that. Your example of buying a mortar and charging for close combat is another good example of very bad tactical use.)
I don't think you would disagree, that given any particular map and already chosen friendly and enemy forces, the value of a unit to two highly skilled players is about the same.
That's one way in which unit values are objective.
As for friendly and enemy units, the game itself defines which of these are likely, both by their point values and by the quotas set to their classification in the unit purchase. Human purchases for competitive games tend to have a uniformity. So really the friendly and enemy forces will not vary so much, as to make wild changes in the value of a unit.
That said, the issue you have with both me and Jason, boils down to just terrain. Your example being heavily wooded and hilly. IMO, just using rural and heavily wooded, and flat, is the most extreme CM quickbattle possible, mapwise. However, even that is not as extreme as you portray it. I had occasion yesterday to look at one such map very closely (me attacking, medium, rural, heavy woods, small hills). It still had a number of clearings 100m or more. Tank movement was limited, but even with no road I could get from my setup area to all the flags. So yes, it was lousy for tanks, but tanks would still be effective. They are less valuable, perhaps, by a factor of 2, say. But no worse than that.
We could make terrain objective in several ways. One might be to declare a canonical set of QB params, to try to determine fair prices only for that. At TH, the most common params are villiage, medium woods, moderate hills. So that's what my experience reflects a lot of. However, we might pick anything.
Better would be to say that all possible QB generated maps are equal in weight. That still gives us an objective set of circumstances. Albeit a rather large set. And this is what I think you should aim for.
Now we finally get to my point. In practically every map you can generate, there are going to be either (a) long lines of sight, or (
enough cover, so that mortars can operate without having to expose themselves. This means that ability to take losses simply is not that important for mortars. -
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
If indirect fire was not possible, do you think the mortar prices would't seem a bit steep compared to, say, 75mm howitzer?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes. The direct fire guns all have substantial antitank capability, for one thing. But they also have far larger blast ratings. They are definitely superior.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Seems the mortars already are more expensive than guns, comparing firepower and survivability.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True enough. However, I was responding conditionally to what Steve said: that the same equation was used for all guns. It may be that that formula does distinguish mortars somehow. (In fact, it must if your observation that mortars are more costly is correct, which is true IMO.) However, what I was pointing out was that the formulae need to differ in quite a few respects, which is evidently not the case. Among those respects are: price per-man for crew size (less important for mortars than guns), and price per point of ammo (more important for mortars than guns).
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
With all the work we have done, and obvious attention to detail,
when you find something you don't understand it is best to assume that you aren't looking
at everything that we did.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure, everyone knows this. And I expect everyone in this debate, if asked, would say that by and large CM is pretty well balanced. The prices are not perfect, but pretty good.
That said, they are not perfect and we know it. You forget that we have a source even more infallible than BTS' formulae for testing the price/performance of units: the game itself. That's what I am reporting to you when I tell you that almost always, I end up with mortar teams intact and out of ammo. Games played at TH, that is, as American and German. I rarely play Brits, though I must say they are looking better and better.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Are the 3" mortars underpriced? Perhaps, perhaps not. All depends on how they are used, and that is true for many weapons systems in the game.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is true that the price of a unit is relative to its use. But the question should be not how they can be used, but how they are best used (assuming that "best used" is something the player can reasonably get in most reasonable game situations). For an extreme example, it is possible to pay 200 points for a Panther and then reverse it into battle. If you do that, you can expect to lose it very quickly, and it will not be worth the 200 points.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
However, keep in mind that the equations that calculated the prices for these mortars are the same ones that calculated the prices for every other artillery type weapon in the game. The 3" might be something worthy of special casing, but again... that is debatable.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If mortars are priced like other guns, then it is certain that mortars with few men are going to be bargains and mortars with many men, not so good. Guns face the enemy and take casualties; they need men. Mortars don't, much. Similarly, having large supplies of ammo with a gun is going to be much less worthwhile than having large amounts with a mortar. The mortar is very likely to fire all of its load. An average gun is not; some do, yes, but many die before getting off more than a few rounds.
Mortars should not be priced using the same equation as guns. If indirect fire was not possible for mortars, then using the same equation would be fine. But indirect fire is possible. (Incidentally, if you add indirect fire for on-board guns in CM2, then you are going to want to reprice them using the mortar equations.)
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:
In my opinion, mortars are best used on offense.
Taking out gun positions or suppressing MG's. I consider
it to be a waste to use the smallish bombs against infantry.
So mobility
and survivability are key features for me.
Even 81mm ones, I often manage to lose to arty strikes.
(I do know how to use HQ as spotter)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would never use an 81mm against anything but opposing guns, until I was pretty darn sure that either I had KOed them all, or else that any that were left were not going to be visible. At that point I would probably vent any remaining ammo at whatever seemed opportune. Or I might move -- depending on how far and how exposed it was going to be to get a bead on whatever guns were out there.
This is true of both offense and defense. The QB map generator happens to create maps where the setup from both sides can often see most of the map. That is a simple fact which we have to live with. There are almost always many places you can set up mortars, so that an observer can see vast swaths of the map for them.
Therefore, mortars rarely need mobility, in most quick battles. Maybe a little bit to get to the initial firing positions, but usually you get a fine place in setup.
As for losing them to enemy counterfire, well, that is possibly a risk for 76mm ones, but rarely for 81mm. Why? Because by the time the enemy has a good fix on where your 81mm mortars are, you should have fired most or all of your ammo. He should know that, and save his arty for better targets. In any case, having extra men is usually not decisive when under arty, since near-hits will cause the men to leave the mortar regardless of their number. After they ditch the mortar you don't care about their numbers. What extra men are good for is when you are under constant, low-firepower plinking such that you lose a man here, a man there.
A tip for observers: try to use a leader +1 or +2 command. (If he also has morale or combat, perhaps he is better at the front, but if he doesn't he is a great observer.) This allows the mortars he directs to be far enough apart that they cannot all be hit with the same arty. Use his platoon either with a company commander or as a reserve unit in front of the leader, so that after you kill a gun or three with the mortars he can run forward, join his guys and go to the front.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
... the 81mm teams have 2 more men than the 3" mortars, meaning that they have greater staying power in the field. In other words, it is much easier to knock out or immobilize a 3" mortar than a 81mm. Also, ammo counts go down VERY fast if the 3" mortar takes casualties and then tries to move.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
90+% of games I play, my mortars end up with zero ammo, and unhurt. This is not surprising, since I practically never expose them to the enemy. Two extra men for half the ammo is not an even trade in my experience.
And I don't think it is even in the experience of most other good players, either, judging by how they rave about (and buy) the 76mm.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The benefits of Recoilless Rifles are simply reduced recoil necessitating a lighter and more mobile gun construction. This enhanced mobility is NOT shown in CMBO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually the enhanced mobility is modelled just fine in CM. The German 75mm has transport class 3, the 105 has 4. This is compared to the 75mm inf (with 4), the 75mm pak (7? I think), or the 105 howizter (8). Transport classes 3 and 4 can get serious movement done on foot in the course of 30 turns; 8 is practically immobile.
Tactically, I often buy a 75mm rcl as German, hoping to be able to carry it into a surprising location.
it is well known that the SMG types are superior. Because of that, and the fact that Germans are slightly superior anyway, most games at TH avoid allowing SMG infantry. 
CM mortars, for the price, suck. They are only cost-effective for one, very specific role: taking out enemy guns.
the little guy no one buys!
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
If I wanted to play a game about min-maxing my forces... I'd play something else.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am curious (and serious): what would you play?
IMO, there is nothing better for the serious mechanic, than to play a game that is pretty hard to min-max.
And in any case, as you said you want to play a fun game about WWII. At least one mechanic likes the subject matter just as much as you do.
However your point about bargains in CM is well taken. One thing serious mechanics do, faced with the problem, is to make up extra rules to avoid it. But not all bargains can be banned, and so the problem remains (if perhaps somewhat abated).
One the things I have been trying to get going is a decent random picker for forces. The one CM comes with doesn't cut it in my book; it is not fair enough.