Vanir Ausf B

Nope. No word. The latest 100% unsubstantiated speculation is that the game will ship in October. Rumor mongering is fun.

They are busy... too busy.

Are you sure of this? I'm curious what the US Army would want with such a feature being that CM doesn not model modern units. It seems to me that TacOps would be far more oppropriate for this until BTS gets around to making a modern warfare CM.

Not true. You can't see the forces picked, but you can see the map.

BTS has said they are trying to alter the setup proceedure to fix this as well as prevent the same sort of thing happening with the new variable rarity feature. Last we heard they were not sure if they would have time to fit it in. Let's hope.

One other thing I will say is that I think we should try to not be too judgemental at this point sinse none of us (posting in this thread) have actually seen the rarity system in action. From the very beginning when BTS laid out their plans for implementation of variable rarity I had serious reservations about the very concept of rarity by price manipulation (as did others, as you can see). However, it should be noted that everyone who has used the system so far seems to like it and think it will be fine for ladder play. BTS has received an earfull on this and so I know they are aware of our concerns. I am inclined to withhold final judgement of it until I see for myself. That is not to suggest we cannot discuss this, but only to say that accusing BTS of ignoring a large section of their customer base may be premature at this point.

You will note from reading the linked thread that I talked about a "dice roll" (I called it binary) system. However, your version adds a second part that makes no sense to me, from a historical persective. If a vehicle is available for purchase I see no reason to limit the number available. This just encourages people to buy "one of these and two of those" and end up with mixed platoons. This would also be problematic to implement as I'm not sure how you would reconcile it with buying units in formations ("what to you mean my KT platoon only has one vehicle!") It has to do with the frequency that rare units will be available at cost with no rarity premium under variable rarity. I went into this in some detail in the linked-to thread. In essense, I object to the notion that some units should ALWAYS have at least some rarity premium added to their cost under variable rarity. That should be the case only in fixed rarity, IMO.

Anybody speculating about rarity in CMBB would be advised to read this thread, if they have not already. Many of the issues being discussed here are brought up there and addressed by BTS.

BTS has said there will be no demo before release. I think they are smart to not have a release date. If they did set a date they would probably miss it and then everyone would be more annoyed than if they had never set one at all. I've seen it happen many times before with other games: publisher announces date, date is missed, fans go nuts about being "lied to" and how the devs are incompetent ect.

No kidding. 14 posts in 3 years! Well, no one can accuse you of spam.

Heh, they actually did start up 2 games on the Rugged Defense ladder, but AFAIK they were never finished.

I don't think so. According to various BTS comments made from the beginning of time, changing the PBEM format is not easy. They are trying to alter the way settup is done so that people can't cheat with the new rarity system, but they aren't sure if even that will make it in.

I never put too much faith in those things. Unless the developer told them they are just guessing. Having said that, I wouldn't mind. The more time they take, the more goodness they can put in. Do you want gun accuracy to be effected by wind? I do. Besides, I've got plenty to keep me busy 'til October (Uncommon Valor, UT2003, ect... )

Thanks for the post, Dan. That was informative. I personally have always felt that being able to tailor your purchases to a map you have already seen was a little too "gamey" for my taste. But I understand others will feel differently as user made maps are hard to beat for quality, so I can see that would be a valid point. I will say that the example you gave looks considerably better than I had expected. Of course, it's only one example and we'll have to see how things do on the average. I still prefer the binary system, but if that is indicative of a typical purchase screen this system may yet be workable in ladder play. Again, thanks for the info.

Hopefully my last post cleared that up. That was it's purpose. Correct, in a way. The price threshold is simply the base price. Why that? Because the base price represents the actual combat capability of the unit, in general terms. You can say that there are areas where this could be improved (and many have) but by-in-large CM gets it pretty close. All else being equal, points spent on rarity premium are points wasted. If you spend 350 pts to buy a tank with a base cost of 250 you are still only getting 250 pts of potential. The extra 100 pts are just gone, where they could have been used to buy more capability in the form of another infantry platoon or a heavy mortar battery if you had simply bought 2 common 125 pt tanks at base price instead. But the argument comes back that there are cases where a person feels a certain unit will be extra useful in a particular game and so feels justified in spending the extra rarity points for it. I think this is the case at times, but in my experience it very rarely works out that way. Certainly, if you knew from the map settings you would be likely playing on essentially a large billiard table it would make sense to pay a lot extra for a big tank with thick frontal armor, even at a high premium. But few QBs, and fewer ladder QBs, are played on such extreme terrain that you could predict that in advance without seeing the map. Settings are usually some combination of the more moderate settings to avoid just such situations where a particular unit type will dominate. Add to that the fact that the 350 pt KT you buy will bag your opponent 350 victory points if he nails it (even though it only had ~250 pts of potential) and you are taking a huge gamble that would probably backfire more often that not. Hope that makes sense. There are two main reasons I never bought the big expensive rare stuff in CMBO. 1) is that I felt that using it would lead to the development of sloppy armor tactics. 2) is that they are not as cost effective in CMBO as most cheaper units. All of the best bang for the buck tanks in CMBO cost less than 150 pts (the most expensive being the Churchill VIII). Top ladder players almost never buy KTs or Jadgtigers. The biggest reason I like rarity even though I mostly use the cheaper common stuff is that it will screw up the formula players. These are guys who pretty much buy the same units every game and use the same tactics. Some of them are quite effective despite their predictability. Rarity would force them to use different unit types. Heck, it would force me to use different units. Although I am not a formula player I did tend to have favorite units that I would pick most of the time. There is also the fact that I keep telling myself one day I will break down and buy a couple of Jadgtigers just for the hell of it. I still haven't been able to bring myself to do it ("But look how many Pz IVs I can get for that...") but who knows. Depends. My impression is that if you don't include units with a significant premium as "choice", your choices really aren't better. Of course, without seeing either system work this is somewhat speculative on my part. My disappointment was that it didn't discount items down to their base value often enough. See my post above. Note that you did say this was still being tweaked and so I'm not sure what to think of it yet other than I like the system better with the wild card than without, in principle. Not so. See my post above. I hope you're right. This is something I wouldn't mind being proven wrong on

Ah, Steve, you posted while I was typing. Fair questions. I'll stay awake a little longer...

I don't recall, but if you found yourself going in circles I'm sure you had your reasons for doing that. "Hardly ever?" I would say the rare stuff should be purchased about as often as you would expect to have seen it historically, which is not necessarily hardly ever, but could be on some cases. Which is exactly what I want. Hmm. I was hoping to get some solid numbers for this, but it appears I'll have to use guesstimates to show what I mean. I have little doubt that the current VR system will do exactly what it is intended to do. My problem with it is that is appears (from what we have been told) that it unnecessarily caters to one type of CM player to the exclusion of another. Let me explain. It seems that the current VR system design incorporates at least one the two following assumptions (and possibly both): </font> Historical and competitive play are incompatible.</font>Competitive players don't really care about historical accuracy and so it is pointless to consider them in decisions meant to further historical accuracy of the game. </font>Both of these are false assumptions, IMO. The heart of the issue is who will often find a rare unit at +30% premium a good choice and who will dismiss it out of hand. Sailor Malan said it himself: He is right. I have little doubt that competitive players will choose rare vehicles much less frequently under VR than historical players because the bang-for-the-buck factor means more to them. The popular answer to this is "well, play with rarity off!" Why should we have to chose? Earlier in this thread Steve said I wanted to have my cake and eat it too. He was absolutely correct, but not in the way he meant. If it were up to me I would design the VR system in a much simpler, straightforward way that I think would please everyone (well, not everyone, but both competitive and historical CM players in general): If, for example, there were 200 KTs on the Eastern front in February 1945 and 2000 panzers total on the Eastern front (these are the guesstimate numbers I mentioned earlier) then the odds of having a KT available to purchase would be 1 in 10 games. If available for purchase it would be at base cost (all units would be, always). If it is unavailable it simply doesn't appear in the purchase list at all. This is basically the binary or "in or out" system. Of course you would have to do the separate calculations for each of the regions, just like the current VR system, but it really is very simple. To me it's beauty is in its simplicity. You can't claim it isn't historical as the chances are based directly on historical numbers. And... AND... competitive players can use it and love it as well, as there is no rarity premium added to the cost to screw up the bang-for-the-buck factor. As a ladder player who prefers his forces (and his opponent's) to bear some resemblance to historical norms, that cake would taste fine to me. As few quick caveats: 1. My opinions on the current VR system are based entirely on what we have been told. I have not seen it in action and it is entirely possible that it will knock my socks off against all expectations when I do. My attempts to "water it down" are only to get the wild card factor to a point where a competitive player who will hardly ever buy units at a significant premium will still have them available at base cost about the same frequency he would under the binary system (which would be a historically accurate frequency). If it turns out that this is the case I will be the first to stand up and shout hallelujah. 2. In no way do I expect BTS to adopt the binary VR system. I had this discussion with Steve long ago and he made it clear then that he expected most ladder players to turn rarity off anyway and so was not particularly concerned with making a VR system that would appeal to them. My reason for posting it here is to prove to several people in this thread that I really do want a historical based rarity system in CMBB, I just want one that will appeal to more than just hardcore historical players. 3. All opinions are my own. I do not represent ladder players the world over, I just call it as I see it. 4. If this post makes no sense whatsoever, I will blame it on the fact that I have had 2 hours sleep in the last 36 hours and the caffeine has worn off

Competitive and historical are not mutually exclusive. I'm sure as well, since I am one of them. Who said they wanted to water it down? Not I. I simply would prefer a different system to achieve it. As system, you will note, that Steve has said would result in less rare units being picked. Kinda shoots down your point. Now if someone would kindly provide me with those numbers... [ May 11, 2002, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Um, why? There is no seperate message board for CMBO. Just Combat Mission. In essence, this is the CMBB message board.

Jinxing does not help in CM. All it does is keep the target in LOS longer so the shooter gets more shots.

That's because it is a game. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. See the recent relative spotting thread. Strawman. Nobody here is giving BTS a hard time. I'd say there are few people on this board that have spent more time defending CM from the masses of "my KT got killed by a Stuart BTS fix or do somefink!" guys than I have. If we can't have a mild and polite discussion about the rarity system BTS ought to just close down this board now, cuz it ain't doing anyone any good. My humble opinion

Ok, I didn't have time for this earlier. But these statements got me thinking. First I need some grog numbers. According to a sourse I have there were 226 operational KTs in Feb. 1945. What I need to know is how many of those were assigned to the East front that month (all of them?) and how do those numbers compare to the total number of operational panzers on the East front that month. My kingdom for a copy of Panzertruppen.

Well, not really. I stated in my last post that I have never bought a vehicle more expensive than a Tiger (and I bought those only once) so I'm not exactly your typical KT lover... But I like the idea of having the option to buy them once in a while. The $20000 question is what is "once in a while" or "once in a blue moon". At the heart of my questions is the belief that I personally would never even consider buying a KT at +50%. A 50 pt armored car at +50% isn't too bad but a 250 pt tank at +50% means giving up an infantry platoon or a 105mm battery just to cover the rarity factor. No way, Jose. Not unless I know beforehand that the map would strongly favor such a vehicle. So, I like the idea of a wild card chance to buy very rare stuff at base price "once in a while", as in all likelihood this would be the only way I would personally ever get it under VR. However, if Smilie's rough figure of every 3-5 games is as close as you suggest, then that would be about where I would want it. My main purpose in pursuing this line of questioning was to see if I could get a rough figure like this pinned down.

I have read what KwazyDog wrote, and I believe he meant every word of it. I just can't see me paying 50% extra for anything. Maybe I'm just weird like that. I have never bought a tank more expensive than a Tiger I in a game anyway, so I'm probably a cheapskate. What I was really hoping for was more differentiation between fixed and variable rarity. We already knew rare stuff would be nearly impossible to get in fixed rarity, so I was hoping for something more than next-to-impossible with VR. I'm not sure how much a "bunch" of games are. Probably more that 1 in 1000 or even 1 in 100. We probably won't be able to form a strong opinion of the system until we've had the chance to play around with it. [ May 10, 2002, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Your aren't paranoid if they really are out to get you I know cheating in CM is rare. I also know it does happen and I would just prefer not to have to worry about it. I guess it comes down to how much a bother you feel the extra 2 files would be. For me, it would be nothing. I'm never in that big of a hurry.