Smiler

Nice analysis Andrew! I agree that the original post sounded like a native speaker's words, but I could not have explained why nearly so precisely!

Why is this? I was considering embarking on the road to groglydom by ordering some of his books. Are there better libraries out there (or a "starter kit" list)? I'm mostly interested in high-level organization and doctrine at the moment.

Yup this is very cool. I'm looking forward to giving it a shot. In fact, it's so cool, it makes one wonder if anyone's ever thought of adding an operational layer directly into CM:BO... You know, maybe just having CM export some text file that an external operational client manages or something. Sounds pretty simple. *runs and hides*

Except that it's not possible for pts to take care of it. The problem is that the value of a unit depends in large part on what your opponent has chosen. What would you rather have; a Sherman 75 or a Jackson? Well it depends -- the 75s are overmatched against the cats but excellent against infantry. This is what is sometimes frustrating about being an allied player -- the allied armor is very effective against 90% of the enemy's arsenal (and thus must be priced accordingly), but when one of the 10% steps forward (think tiger II)....well, you know you have your work cut out for you. The balancing rules attempt to eliminate these mismatches for both sides to ensure that the points are comparable.

I don't know. I'm interpreting "bunch" to mean somewhere around 3-5. Even assuming that the flat rate is 1%, let's say there are ten very-rare units. That means you have about a 10% of getting at least one very rare unit at a decent cost. The next level down might have another 10 units, etc. I'd imagine as you go down to more common units the "blue moon" factor becomes less important since the unit's cost might be reasonable anyway due to normal variety fluctuations. Obviously, I pulled the numbers from my butt, but the point is that you'll get some variety in a reasonable number of games. With rarity, the point isn't to get a specific unit that you want, but to get something interesting thrown in now and then.

A few random thoughts: Re: the chances of getting the "blue moon" special on a rare unit. If I were king of the world, I'd like to see something that gave a breakdown roughly similar to this: - 40%. All units in game are fairly common for their type (maybe a few slighty rare things at a slight premium). - 35%. All units in game are common or slightly rare. - 20%. Some rare units, though nothing like a Jagdtiger. - 5%. At least one uber-rare unit available at a good deal. This is a lot different than seeing a JT 1 in 20, anyway, because in CMBO the rare units are available at cost every battle and I generally don't see them now. The point is that Jagdtigers didn't show up in 5% of all battles, but I don't really want to re-enact every battle in the war to see everything, either. The fact of the matter is that everyone has a personal preference here. Some people want to see roughly historic frequencies here, and some people (like me) would rather see more rare units, but still mostly biased towards actual forces. If there were some parameter used to tweak how often rare units were seen it would fix this, but at the cost of adding yet another parameter to battle setup. Again, I'm curious if most folks want more or fewer rare units than me. Regarding cheat prevention, I think it's nice to have the computer eliminate even the notion of cheating. It's human nature to start wondering when your enemy gets lucky (how many "Tiger accuracy is worse than Sherman!" posts have we seen?). The extra step in the setup would be burdensome, but worth it. Also, if BTS has had time to eliminate the extra step during main game play (3 mails for 2 turns), then overall PBEM games will proceed more smoothly, anyway.

Yup, I like this a lot. I had originally wanted something more along of random restriction of unit availability, but the current proposed VR system is better. Nicely done, BTS. And Winecape, I agree 100%!

Fair enough. One could argue that because most units in a VR game are more common, the rare uber-units are less likely to meet enemies that can stop them. Which would mean that paying a reasonable premium could very well be worth it. Thanks for all the information, guys! I'm really looking forward to this system.

Re: very rare vehicles: So as much as I like the VR system in general, I find this a bit disappointing. Let say that a vehicle is a good value if it is within 5% of its base cost. I would think that an ultra rare unit should occasionally be a good value, but much more rarely than a more common unit. Say a King Tiger being a good value 1 out of 30 QBs for a certain month/area, and a panther in that same month being a good value 1 out of 5 QBs. The point is, when playing someone I want to occasionally see very rare units (without being overly expensive) -- just very rarely! This is not the same as saying I want to play with rarity off. I'd be curious to see how others feel, and whether this is set in stone or could be swayed by public opinion.

So in a previous thread my understanding was this: In a variable rarity system, the base price of the unit is calculated using the rarity figures Steve talks about in the MGO web site. So perhaps you see engineers listed with a 4x base price over rifle platoon. However, the actual cost for that specific QB will include some variable factor that may make the unit more or less expensive. Depending on how extreme the factor is, you might even see a rare unit as cheap as its effective cost (the CMBO costs) -- perhaps even a bit cheaper. The more rare the unit, the less likely that is to occur. Therefore, you will occasionally see a Jagdtiger being as cheap as it is are in CMBO (still fairly expensive), but that's much less likely than seeing a Panther at its CMBO cost. If they show all three figures (the base "effectiveness cost", the fixed rarity price, and the variable rarity price), the player will be able to see how effective the unit is, how rare they were in real life, and what kind of deal they're getting. Usually, the Jadgtiger will be prohibitively expensive, and no one could realistically expect to do well by picking it. Sometimes, it will be at a moderate premium, such that the player could pick it without crippling himself if he really wants to. And rarely, it will be a good deal. Therefore, in variable rarity games you would expect most forces in the game to be historically common, but many games will have at least uncommon units, and some will have rare ones. Isn't this what people want? In PBEM games, you probably won't be able to see the unit screen until after sending the file at least once, otherwise the system could be abused. I'm looking forward to it, as it will force people to choose things they don't normally choose (and sometimes things they don't really want). BTW, re: the tank prices. The act of picking combined arms implies armor. I would hope that rarity applies to units vs. the most common type of the category (i.e. PzIV rarity = 100%). Otherwise, you'd rarely see tanks in a combined arms QB, which seems kinda silly. I didn't see anything in the MGO article that implied otherwise, but perhaps I missed something.

...except that such a tank would not have the ability to unbutton (a valuable thing). But I agree with your main point, in that I'd imagine having a dead commander in the tank's belly is very distracting at best.

Sounds like a good (and workable) idea to me. As for replay, well, replay is always a bit less enjoyable than the first time though anyway. And if you could turn off the markers' effect, you could still get variable (though probably less effective) outcomes.

Some other folks have already mentioned some of the things I was going to say here, but TAC AI and strat AI are two completely different things! I mean, look at chess. Chess is a much simpler game than CMBO, requires no initial strategy (there's no setup), and has had many more man-hours of work on it. Yet, my understanding is that chess programs are still largely tactical (chess grogs feel free to correct me). The strategy is derived by using existing strategy (opening book moves), not internally generated on the fly (which is required in a variable-setup game like CMBO). Computers are sufficiently better at tactics that in games that rely on tactics enough, computers can win. Chess appears to be right at the edge, as the best human chess players can still use superior strategy to compete with the better computer tactics. Oh I agree whole heartedley here. Being a naturally surly and cynical person (as my handle implies), I'd just as soon play vs. the AI instead of real, annoying humans (current PBEM opps. excluded, of course ). So I'd like to see the AI improved, too. Sometimes, I just think people underestimate how hard strategic AI is.

Here, here. There's nothing wrong with requesting better AI in the future, but in reality I think the CMBO AI is pretty impressive. That is, it's good AI, even though it's bad at some things. To get a feel for how difficult AI is to get right, imagine that you're playing CMBO, but you can't see the battlefield (including units). Imagine trying to plan a strategy when your input is "you have a tank at (10,10), and a rifle platoon at (10,12). There are woods at (11,10), (12,10), (13,10), etc, etc". It's not easy. The human mind's ability to process visual information at a high level (e.g., where all the units are relative to each other) is extremely powerful and something that computers simply can not do easily. Just consider how many games get optimal pathfinding correct (very few), which on the surface seems like a trivial problem to solve.

It's a fitting tribute to those poor German soldiers who suffered much for the experience. Sadly, for their comrades, all of this talk about arty has piqued my curiosity again. Mr. Boom II will probably be run tonight.

heheheh. I've played both Mr. Boom and another variation involving a horde of 105mm Priests, a German battalion, and very little cover. I have to be honest though, when I saw all of the inf desparately trying to take cover in the single square of brush in the area, I felt so bad I had to surrender. No joke. But I think Mr. Boom is a great learning tool for those of us who originally thought that large caliber arty isn't worth the price due to the low ammo amounts. It changed my mind.

That's exactly what I want -- thanks!!

With CMBB we'll get rarity factors for all the units in the eastern front, but I'm curious as to what they would have been for the allied forces in CMBO. It's mostly just an education thing, as I currently don't have any kind of feel for what units were widely available. So for all you grogs out there, care to take a stab at some estimates? Actually, I'd be interested in estimates for any of the units in CMBO, including axis. I'll go way out on a limb with the following: x1.0 - US rifle platoon x1.0 - M4 Sherman

[ Duplicate post ] [ March 28, 2002, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Smiler ]

Ok, I just went and read the rarity thread at: RarityThread and overall I have to say that I'm pretty happy with the proposed system. The thread also had the unrelated snippet about buying tank formations at a discount, which is a welcome addition, as is the fact that the computer will tend to buy units in formations rather than individually.

Sure, but there's less variability in that. If the computer randomly chooses what's available, it may sometimes let you pick gear that normally would be considered gamey. Also, sometimes even common equipment could be made unavailable (due to local shortages). This type of system allows rare and unique units to get on the board occasionally without anyway being accused of being gamey. Computer lets you choose a Super Pershing? Go for it! It won't happen often! I'm glad to hear that CMBB might have something like this as an option.

So recently it seems that there's been a lot of talk about gamey forces and tactics. On the one hand, you have folks saying that if the game allows it, they wanna do it, which I can understand. On the other hand, lots of folks like to play battles that feel historic. It seems to me that it could be possible to have a QB mode where not all units are available. Units that are historically rare have a chance (randomly determined) to be made unavailable. For example, if you're Allied in July '44, you'll have a hard time getting a hold of 76mm Shermans. And if it is available, you might only be able to get one. I think this is nice for a few reasons. First, it forces you to choose units you don't normally choose. Second, it'll be legitimately exciting when you get your hands on an "exotic" piece of equipment. Third, people that like historic battles know in advance they'll probably get a reasonable force selection from their opponents, but with an occasional surprise thrown in. Finally, there's no guilt when you do get a chance to use something that was rare. I think this has advantages over making more expensive based on rarity. Comments?

It seems to me the first step is to figure out how you want to model the advantage that cold-weather nations have. If it's simply a matter of more front-line troops in good condition, then scenario designers already have the tools necessary to do that with fitness, etc. If you want to model some other effect, say something that affects the chance of a weapon jamming in cold weather, then I would still prefer avoiding a nationality-based adjustment, but rather added another variable (similar to fitness) that describes a unit's "cold-readiness". This is much more flexible. Agreed, but it doesn't need to be hard-coded as FINN=APPROPRIATE_GEAR.

I know it's been mentioned that after-battle statistics will include actual casualties instead of confirmed, which is great. I've often thought that there are a few other statistics that might be nice to get as well, just for kicks. 1. Statistics for units that are wiped out early in an operation. Right now if a unit isn't on the map at the end of an operation you can't see its info. 2. Aggregate stats by unit type. Such as, overall, how did rifle squads do as a whole? How about MGs? All of infantry? 3. Derived stats. How many points did a given unit knock out? What's the ratio of that to its own cost? 4. Curious stats of dubious value. Percentage of shots fired that caused casualties. Average firepower delivered per shot. Expected number of casualties vs actual casualties (i.e. how lucky were you during the battle?). Sure, this is all fluff, but I think it'd be fun to see. Maybe for CM3, perhaps?

A simulation is good if it models the individual components well enough so that the big picture looks like reality without the need for any fudging. In this case, that means that isolated MGs should be able to suppress large numbers of non-charging exposed enemy troops by themselves IF they could in real life. Regardless of whether it happened in real life often. I think this is the appeal of CMBO in general. It gives you the toolkit of realistically modelled individual units, and when you combine them together they generally perform like they would have IRL. Note that I'm not enough of a grog to say how MGs would perform in this situation, just that I hope it "does the right thing". Now, sometimes it's just not possible to model all the components properly due to computer limitations, and you have to settle for abstractions. So the trick is to create the proper abstraction, which is what BTS is trying to do, with, say grazing fire.