[Michael Wittman's Demise - did we find the answer?]

Paranthetical remarks:

(Yes, yes, I noticed that P-51 didn't offer proof of any sort - a total fraud could have written the same thing. (As could an honestly offended person who wrote in good faith.) No need to point this out to me.)

(P-51D: If you want to do me a favor, offer an answer to aka_tom_w's question. Ah... and _not_ like the one you just gave. c'mon, I don't regret asking for more tolerance/less haste - but don't make me regret that it was done in defense of you.)

Edit: (Another response: OK, well, better than the first one...)

[ May 30, 2002, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Attack - whats harder? Defending or attacking?]

I would just say that it seems self-evident to me that the course of action which gives one the greatest leeway is the superior course of action.

What I think you're missing is the gap between theory and practice. (Or, alternatively, if all you're addressing is theory, then you aren't missing anything.) Not all courses of action are equally easy to followed, and its not always clear which action should be taken.

Rather than being only a matter of attitude, someone may be much less skilled at maintaining a fluid defense, as opposed to a largely static one. The fluid defense does indeed have more courses of action availble... more possible actions. The catch is that a huge number of those possible actions are _bad_ ones. Poor moves.

A static defense, OTOH, is relatively straight forward. If nothing else, less movement = less opportunities to make a foolish move.

I do firmly believe that a fluid defense is superior to a static defense... in theory. But a player has to know his limits. I, for example, try to fight my defenses as fluidly as possible, but I still rely on many static elements. I'm just not skilled enough to not take the "easy way out" pretty often.

A static defense can also easily be the best option if the troops used are low quailty - high command delays increase the difficulty of maneuver. And, outside the scope of CM, if you've got the time and material, a static defense is a safer bet than a fulid one. Fewer opportunities for the commander to make a boo-boo.

A very straight forward example would be digging in a tank. I've never dug in a tank at the beginning of a scenario... and sometimes I've lost that tank when a dug-in tank probably would have survived longer.

[Michael Wittman's Demise - did we find the answer?]

claiming to be a "professional" military historian, and an infallible one at that, doesn't match my idea of "casual".

I'm sorry, I missed the part where he claimed to be infallible. Could you point it out, please?

I wasn't aware of any great tradition among military historians of whining about "peer review".

And I'm saying that p-51D probably didn't expect to be met with such suspicion so quickly _here_, the forum for a game. New member, and I supose he believed people wouldn't assume he was a poser if he didn't supply ID and references the same day he posted.

From this new member's perspective, it looked like he was being bullied.

P-51D's treatment by the board was substantially more polite than a lot of academic reviews I've read.

That's not saying much.

If he ostentatiously parades

ostentatious = infallible?

he has absolutely no grounds for complaint if he is asked to provide a reference to it.

Very true - but then there's the _manner_ in which the question is asked. And the manner in which other posters replied to his claims.

Still, I fail to see why he needed to refer to his references to be able to tell us his name or the name of his company.

Did anyone ask before he thought the tone turned hostile? Does it matter, if the references are given? No, and no. And some people are still very uncomfortable about giving thier ID over the internet.

Indeed, there has to date been no shred of evidence presented against this position -- despite the extreme ease of doing so had it been available.

Yeah, he could of the second day. He left either because:

a) He's a fake.

or

He thinks the forum is a shark tank, dominated by an established clique hostile to newcomers, and has other things he'd rather do in his free time.

From the information we have, we can't be certain.

It is not "treating someone like crap" to ask for a reference to a paper of theirs they have brought to your attention. Nor is it "treating someone like crap" to correct errors of fact they have posted.

Unless you do so in a snide, hostile manner, correct.

Nobody ever put any time limit on P-51D to post his references, and certainly not one of 3 hours, so that is a strawman argument.

I think you missed my point. P-51 first posted at 8 am the first day. His last post on the that day was at 11. _After_ that three hour period the tone became much less friendly. So: It _seems_ that if someone doesn't prove his identity and professional standing in 3 hours, it's assumed he's a fake. Or at least, it's implied he is one. By more than one person, sometimes multiple times.

Indeed Mike Dorosh made it quite plain that he would welcome their posting at any future date, and I imagine that goes for the rest of us, too.

It was plain that people wanted the info, yes. Would welcome the info, yes. Would welcome P-51D... by that point I think it was quite reasonable for him to feel unwelcome.

Some people, not having your thick skin, will simply opt out of a discussion if it turns unpleasent. He was probably here as a matter of recreation. Not to, for example, defend himself from multiple attacks on his character.

Maybe, if he needed a couple of days to find his sources, he should have moderated the dogmatic tone of his continued postings, don't you think?

Nope. I don't think he was all that dogmatic. I thought he seemed certain. I can admit that he might have seemed dogmatic to some. I'm betting you can't admit that you (and others) might have seemed to have posted with unjustified hostility. (Unless, of course, you were to add a derogatory qualifier. Ex: "Feeble minded high school students might have found the environment too hostile.")

I didn't particularly like P-51D's tone either, but I didn't think it was so offensive that disparaging remarks were the proper response. Not after just 5 posts, all within a few hours of each other. Remember: My beef isn't that you (and others) "attacked" this guy, it's that you did it so quickly. I find that so offensive to my sense of fair play and desire to see people communicating well that I had to speak out.

This is, in many ways, a WWII history forum, and I understand that you truly care about what is said here. However, it's also a _forum_, and some people truly care about how things are said.

He has absolutely no reason to whine about his treatment in this thread; still less do you have any justification for whining on his behalf.

You _really_ don't see how the rections of yourself and others could have been interpreted as hostile? Really? Ok, I'll take your word for it. (See, where you might assume someone is lying to puff themself up, I'll just assume you - much like P-51D - are a poor communicator.)

But I consider the use of the word "whining" when describing my response as hostile, and uncalled for. I think you're merely trying to lable me as a "whiner." Probably the closest someone as polite and mannered as you can bring yourself to an ad hominem attack. My post was accusatory, sure. Presumptious, maybe. Possibly even "wrong." "Whining" - I really don't think so.

If you take nothing else away from this (which seems likely) take this: Next time, give a new probably-fake historian more rope to hang himself. Following some of the references others gave, there does seem to be some evidence for the rocket-attack theory. I would have liked to have seen more of what P-51D had to offer - either to completely discredit him, or learn something new.

Taking your marbles and going home in tears makes you no better than whoever insulted you.

I'll attempt to do the mature version of "taking my marbles and going home." by saying this: With my initial post on this subject and this response I've had my say. Any favorable effects that might have resulted from my posts (ie - giving the newbie a chance to get his references) will have been realized, and further words on the subject will certainly be wasted...

Except, maybe, for this summary: Please don't be so hasty.

[ May 30, 2002, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Attack - whats harder? Defending or attacking?]

But a bunker that is part of a checkerboard of mg/minefield/AT/wire/mortar defences can be literally invincible. Such defences, if perfectly using the terrain,

"Literally invincible"? Oh, come now.

My problem with your, ah, position is that you seem to be overemphasizing the power of the _static_ defense. Or, maybe just overestimating the ease of setting up a practically invincible static defense in CM... at least with the map sizes and force sizes I play with. I'd like to see you and Fionn comment on what map and force sizes you prefer to play with. It'd also be interesting if one of you tends to play QBs and the other scenarios.

do not simply add up: they multiply,

"Synergy"

like the abilities of an RPG Ueberhero.

"Too little to do on the weekend."

[Attack - whats harder? Defending or attacking?]

Fionn: 1. An aggressive defence is superior to a passive defence ( if properly executed).

(snip)

AS: What I was saying is I disagree with (1) above theoretically and in principle.

(snip)

AS: defensive mindset will win all the time.

I disagree with your disagreement.

First, I wonder if "carefull" or "cautious" would make a better argument than "defensive."

An attack - or counterattack - happens when you think you have some sort of local superiority and can hurt the enemy more than you'll be hurt. (And "hurt" doesn't necessarily refer only to casulties.)

If I'm understanding Fionn correctly, then you could rephrase his basic argument as "Be quick to take advantage of any local superiorty to (counter)attack, and when you setup/buy your forces try to foster the creation of local superiority."

Someone in a "seige mentality" could easily overlook most opportunities to counterattack, which would certainly make defending far more difficult.

I think AS, though, would argue that against a sufficiently carefull attacker it is very difficult for the defender to create enough counterattacks to carry the day.

Much, though, depend on the amount of time the attacker can spend scouting the defender's positions. I think good CM mission scenarios/QBs don't give the attack the time needed to explore the defender's positions to that extent. Not unless the attacker is willing to take some risks...

Furthermore, from what I've seen it is quite possible to set up a scenerio/QB in which the defender would have an extremely difficult task. (The posts on small maps, fortifications (or the lack), artillery, etc.) However, I don't think those are the most realistic (or enjoyable) scenarios.

[Michael Wittman's Demise - did we find the answer?]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by P51D:

[qb]Unfair is being called a liar by someone whom i have never met or knows me.

I can find no posting anywhere in this thread where anyone calls you a liar. </font>

[AI force selection and bones]

Originally posted by Caesar:

I do wonder if the rarity options that CMBB is going to have, will end the requirement for the rulesets. Who cares if you come across a cherry picker. They will be hampered by the excessive cost of their rare forces.

One can only hope I suppose.

While limiting uber-units, I doubt it'll help "legislate" against gamey tactics/purchaces that make use of common units - if there are any in CMBB. A purchase rules-set (or better yet, restraint on the part of the QB participants) would still be usefull. They'd be quite different, though. I imagine it'd be much easier to agree/identify gamy tactics (ala "jeep rush") than agree on the proper way to balance or limit the forces in general.

(Note I said "much easier" - I'm not saying it'd necessarily be "easy.")

["Why not do a search?"]

I just want to throw out a reminder:

I see the "do a search" suggestion quite a bit, and I think it's seldom as easy as it sounds. There's several hundred thousand CM posts, spread over (AFAIK) 7 searchable archives. If your question revolves around frequently used words a search completely impracticle. It's _far_ easier to ask and hope someone points you in the right direction. Maybe with thread links, or suggested search terms, or a member # to search under. Or just an answer to the question.

I'm new to the forum, and have been using the search function rather than ask questions. I happen to have both the time and the interest to wade through tens of threads looking for an answer. It does, however, often take literally hours to find those answers - when I find them at all. (Sometimes the ol' "trying to prove a negative" problem crops up.) And that's with a so-called "broadband" connection. I don't think I'd have the time for the searches if I had a phone-modem, or had to search during high-traffic times.

I don't remember seeing a thread where the _only_ response to a question was "Do a search." So maybe the point of this post is simply: If you're going to suggest a search without giving a few good clues as to how to proceed, don't bother. Someone else will, and you'll have a smidgen more time for other things, eh? Well, that, and lower the frustration/irritation level of anyone you're handing a Herculean task.

[I quit...CM too unrealistic]

Fortunately there is an objective verification of this: just go to the Uncommon Valor forum on matrixgames and look at a new thread with the words "fed up" in the title,

I looked.

very similar in tone to the one opening this thread here,

I think not. If you really found the tone "similar" then I understand why you've had a difficult time here. I even found the content significatly different, in that the UV post failed to blame Matrix for UV's shortcomings.

I also noticed a poster in that thread state, in apparent contridiction to your stance, that the board has "occasional flare ups." From what I've seen, that's exactly what the CM forum has.

A tolerant attitude is not a fault.

I'd praise the posters here for invariably reacting politely no matter the provocation. I won't fault them for failing to do so.

[I quit...CM too unrealistic]

Hey, the poster is FRUSTRATED and is venting, but his "attack" against BTS deserve to be shrugged off, and the valid points of his message addressed.

Ah, "venting." There should be a special forum for that. One that people can post to, but no one can read.

"Deserve"? Why not turn it around, and shrug off the hostility of some of the responses and address only their valid points?

Finally here is a question: why is it that the SPWaW forum and other matrix forums are free of the flame wars that sporadically appear here? My view is that the reason resides in the intolerance here to those who do not line up with a certain orthodoxy.

Several years ago I remember "chatting" in a few USENET messages with a regular of the Combat Mission board (Fionn?). We agreed that web-forums tended to be nastier than USENET... So, anyway, I'm interested in the question.

This forum seems to have about 40% more participants. (Total registered members.) Comparing some other numbers, this forum (Battlefront vrs. Matrix) has about 100% more posts. (Though Matrix may have taken pre-200 offline.) The CM general forum (not Tips and Tricks, etc.) has about 300% more active topics over the last 5 days.

I think that goes a long way toward explaining a higher incidence of "nastiness." As the community gets larger the number of conflicts increases at a rate faster than the actual increase in memembers too, I believe.

Finally, as realistic as SP is, it isn't as much the grognards game as CM. And we all know what "grognard" means.

("As much" is a key phrase in the statement above, btw. That conclusion isn't based on any number crunching, but I've played both games, and read both forums.)

As for BTS's "viciousness". Steve is definetly showing signs of "I've already had this conversation!" burnout, and, to a lesser extent, so are a number of the long time posters. I don't think I need to get into why this is the case. It'd be _nice_ if Steve and everyone else could approach each "suggestion" with a fresh, cheerfull attitude. But I'd rather have an honest response than the usual PR whitewash.

[I quit...CM too unrealistic]

"BTS has vigorously defended against the design or aiding the design of an Operational supplement. They argue that division or corps level support and logistics are "beyond the scope" of CM."

You seem to have gone straight from "BTS isn't doing what I want them to." to "CMBO sucks." Gamy tactics, QB purchace problems, lack of an operational level, etc.

I don't think that's valid. I do get the impression that while there are many improvements BTS could impliment addressing your concerns, they'd much rather be working on something else. Yah, in a way they are ignoring a lot of possibilities. So? If you start criticising a developer for the games they _aren't_ making, you really need another hobby.

In my years of gaming I've learned that with most games you get a lot more out of it if you invest some of your own time in improving it. (Right - just like almost everything else.) You don't necessarily have to be a programmer yourself to do this. And you don't even have to download some mods. Concerned about gamy tactics and purchaces? Come to the BB here and discuss what they are and how to prevent them. You want operational level consequences to help determine success in a scenario? Make up your own. (I've done it, it's not that hard. The game does tally up losses at the end of a scenario - it already does the time consuming part for you.)

Don't want to invest your time? Well, fine, but why criticize BTS for not wanting to spend their time on it either? They must have things they consider more important.

And if those things are lounging around eating figs rather than determining the rotation speed of a T-34/85 turret, more power to 'em!

[WWII footage of axis crew trapped in burning tank]

"Personally I think that people with views similar..."

"...while those that do not follow a specific set of moral rules based on their religion and/or personal values..."

If true (I'm not saying it is, I'm not saying it isn't) then I think, in addition to keeping the Compasionate Ones safe, it also prevents the COs from developing a sophisticated enough world-view to remain both a CO and "hard" enough to Do What Must Be Done. (It's 2 am here - the capitalization hour.) Not good.

Actually, though, I think you (both) might be confusing "bleeding hearts" with merely "good people." Having the gumption to perform a little torture doesn't mean you can't be a White Hat.

(Hey, this is basically the Victorian-era concept of a "homemaker" - explicitly a woman at the time - who is the Moral Entity, as opposed to the "person of affairs" (generally thought of as male) who often acts with less than perfect morality as an accepted part of conducting his business, whatever it may be.)

That's "might" - What I think _is_ going on most of the time is that those who've decided they're willing to engage in some mayhem - morally justified or not - protect those who generally don't think about moral issues at all. Cynical? Sure - but is it cynical enough? I keep thinking I'm a cynic but then it turns out I was being an optomist.

Some of the military people I've met have been among the most "morally conscious"... oops - Morally Conscious people I've known. OTOH, some of the military people made my skin crawl. I think warfare causes people to make some choices: Refuse to kill, no matter the cause? Kill, but want to feel it's justified, and try (at least) not to come to enjoy it? (I think that's what most people do.) Or kill, and think its great fun. (Rare, I believe, but it's been encouraged at times - the SS, for example.)

I really just don't like the concept of the lawless few protecting the "compasionate" masses. Not only is it easily twisted to justify any sort of horror those few might need to perpetrate in the name of protecting their hearth, but (more importantly) I think it unessisarily cheapens the value of moral and or intellectual devlopment for both groups. Everyone should have a strong moral code - even if you're out backstabbing enemy sentries in the jungle. (In fact, I think such people need one more than most.) And every _adult_ should know that the world is sometimes a dark and horrible place, and that moral decisions aren't always easy. I don't think a society can stay healthy if many people have such an unrealistic worldview.

The most moral of the military people I met were _not_ always the least hard hearted, most compasionatte, most kind-to-puppies, or whatever. Some of 'em were real bloodthirsty b*st*rds.

Bringing this explicitly back on topic:

Play enough wargames, see enough violence, and I think you end up making the same choice. (Though not nearly as intesely as anyone who's actually had a human target in his sights, certainly.) I think the trouble is if you don't see the full consequences of violence/killing enough it's easy to make the "SS" decision. Likewise, if you see the consequences too often as part of your casual entertainment you can become Desensitized, and again relatively easily fall for the "SS" decision. The key issue is, then, not trying to find the perfect balance between showing too much "gore" and not enough, but rather making sure people aren't ignorant - That they actually invest a little brain power into the matter. And I simply don't think that's the media's job.

Sort of a radical concept, but I think people need to be educated (by parents or schools, either or both) to make the right decisions. The danger isn't in exposing people to too little or too much violence, it's lies with people not understanding the nature of violence - esp. mass violence - itself.

[WWII footage of axis crew trapped in burning tank]

"If the war crimes tribunal afterwards figured I was a criminal then so be it. ... So, just because I'd do it doesn't mean I think it is a morally good option."

Never let your sense of morality keep you from doing what's right? A philosophy prof. once almost had a fit when I said that.

OT, but I think the key concpet here is sacrifice. Fionn's saying he'd be willing to sacrifice the moral high ground to accomplish something desireable. Sacrificing one's own life is seen as virtuous, why not sacrificing one's morality? Rock and a hard place: Either he sacrifices his "virtue", or a bunch of other people die - his choice. Arguably, you could also say that the torture subject is being sacrificed - he puts up with considerable pain, possibly death, to save a bunch of people. Not voluntarily, sure, but does a hero have to choose to do something heroic for it to count?

Anybody got some skis?

[WWII footage of axis crew trapped in burning tank]

"Let me emphasize that today the German people is a thankful nation,"

I've read that wartime (WW2) German officer once said "The only thing worse than Germany loosing the war would be Germany winning the war." (Canaris?)

There's a (in)famous psychology experiment in which volunteers are asked to "punish" (via "electircal stiumulation") other experimental subjects who perform a task incorrectly. (These "other" subjects were fakes, of course - no one was actually being shocked.) Even with the wired-subject begging for the electricution to stop, even after the subject stopped responding, many (most? I don't remember) of the volunteers continued to administer higher and higher voltages at the experimenter's urging.

The horrible thing about Nazis is not that they monsters, the horrible thing is that they _weren't_.

[ May 26, 2002, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Morale and Casualty Issues in CM]

Not quite on topic, but...

I just played a game with almost 2 compaines of Green Volksgrd. vrs. 2 platoons of Crack US riflemen. (Plus some support units and a vehicle or two for each side.)

A very fun game.

There was one squad of Volksgrd. in the back of a heavy building. For about 5 min. (game time) they kept getting orders to go to the front of the building. They'd do so, see the 1 US squad about 100m away in the open, and turn around and hide in the back of the building again. Just because they're Green doesn't mean they're not bloody stubborn.

I thought the Volksgrd. were doing really well untill I realized that the "Eliminated" US platoon was actually an eliminated sharpshooter and 2 bazooka teams. Doh! The other platoon - the supposidly dead one - turned out to be _behind_ me. Just because they're not Conscript Volkstrum doesn't mean they have 20/20 vision...

I think the highest delay time I saw was 184 seconds for one out of command group of slackers.

It was interesting seeing the "gamey" SMGs in the hands of Green troops - didn't seem unbalanced at all.

A Crack M8 Greyhound knocked out a Green Hetzer after the Hetzer popped out of concelment about 300m behind the Greyhound. When the Hetzer came around the building it was hiding behind it was about 15 degrees off of pointing right at the M8. Over the next 20 seconds or so the M8 got off 3 shots, the third hitting the H. in the barely exposed side and knocking it out. In the meanwhile the Hetzer did _nothing._ I know it saw the M8, and was targetting it.... I guess they figured that was enough for now. Next turn they'd see about moving and fireing. The crew didn't even bail after the vehicle was hit. I bet they were still in there, alive and unhurt, but just too lazy to move.

In spite of stuff like that it really was more fun than frustrating to play the Greenies.

[Anyone used the BoB rarity tables this way....?]

Here's what we used for a recent TCP/IP game:

Rather than agreeing to a 1-8 rarity "level" we agreed to the number of rarity _points_ we could each spend. Potential point range was 5-12.

Here's how we spent points:

Must spend at least 1 point in each of the 5 unit categories - Infantry, Support, Ve., Arm., and Arty. (Thus the 5 point minimum.) The number of points you spend is the rarity level you may purchace in that category. So in a 12 point game you could spend, for example, 8 points on Armor, to make available your favorite Uber tank. But then you'd have only 1 point for all the other categories, and could get only the most common stuff.

We liked the system... but there are probably problems with it. It's very simple (though certainly not as simple as the BoB "level" method), but I wouldn't mind making it a little more complicated, but more usefull.

Like, maybe, having Armor rarity cost extra. We could set it on a 3-10 point scale, say - so you'd have to spend at least 3 points in "Armor" to get any tanks/JdgPz/SPGs at all.

I'm also not sure how it might upset play balance... I imagine someone more familiar with the game and the BoB tables might see a potential major abuse that I've missed.

And, of course, Fortifications aren't in the BoB tables. (At least not last time I looked...)

Anyone else try out a similar system? What was it? How'd you like it?

[MGO Exclusive Developers Diary For Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

[QB]I can say that we did not design Rarity to cater to Ladder players, so it would not surprise me if such players have a different opinion about what Rarity should be.

Well, as I was trying to argue, variable rarity like that seen in Dan's post shouldn't cause Ladder players who like being encouraged to use historic forces (those who'd use Vrarity, those who already don't like to use "cookie cutter" forces) any anxiety... And not just because Tigers were cheap in the example given. However:

A Ladder or other highly competative venue could always avoid the whole issue by turning off rarity, and giving each player a sort of virtual OOB based on rarity: Each player is assigned so many of each unit type, and can only use each unit once within each "cycle." (Time, tourney, whatever.) A LOT of book keeping, but I think it sounds kinda fun. (Come to think of it, I dimly remember some table-top tactical-level type games mentioning something like that for pseudo-campaigns. I can't remember which, though.)

Anything that undermines keeping rare things an uncommon sight on the virtual battlefield is a bad thing.

Anything? Oh, deary me.

[MGO Exclusive Developers Diary For Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin]

As an overly competative bastard myself I think I understand where Vanir's coming from. (I'm don't wish to imply that V. is "overly competative" - I'm just saying I am.)

Here's what was going through my gamey little mind when reading most of the discussion: "The most effective way to purchace forces will be to _never_ buy items with a rarity-induced cost increase. I'll play a "vanilla" historical force and beat people who actually stretch a little and spring for a rare item." Rarity encourages you to "role play" your force selection. "JS-1's are expensive this month... I probably wouldn't have any... I won't get any." OTOH, whenever you do buy an item with a rarity-premium you're sacrificing combat effectivness - AND you've got the unit in your force - so much for rarity! One could say that the system was _punishing_ the player for choosing a rare item.

But I don't think that's what's really going on, certainly not after KwazyDog's last post. Here's why:

Point values are fuzzy. As much as I would like to think of the BTS folks as a posse of Popes, I don't think they're infallible or perfect. I think the point values of the units only approximate true combat effectivness. Thus a plus point cost should be seen not as making the unit "more expensive than it SHOULD be", but rather shifting the game's _estimate_ of it's value up, and it's cost. Given your style of play, the sort of opposition you expect, the other units you're getting, and maybe the map, then, as KD said, +50% might still be worth every point. In other words, you _aren't_ paying more than the unit is worth. But that's a judgement call - one relying partially on your knowledge and skill - that you have to make. Sounds good to me.

+50%? Possibly _never_ not worth the extra cost. KwazyDog could be wrong. (Really, it's possible!) But it looks like there are still lots of choices with much less of a "penalty" than +50%. If one _must_ have, for example, an Elephant, in a battle then it sounds like one should be playing a scenario, not a QB, eh?

I believe what Vanir was getting at was that he wanted historic force compositions _without sacrificing QB combat effectiveness._ Sometimes the rarer units _did_ appear, and the commander didn't generally have to send away a few infantry teams to "pay" for them. "Woo hoo, a JdgTiger has been assigned!" not "Heck, we've been assigned a JdgTiger, I'll have to send back that platoon of PzIV." (Though I imagine that did happen sometimes.) The "dice roll" system does, indeed, remove a players ability to choose anything, but it _would_ encourage historic forces without "punishing" the player: The inclusion of a rare unit would not _lower_ your overall point value.

It all comes down to the numbers, though, right?

KwaztDog's numbers look great. "Woo hoo, we've been assigned some Tigers!" It probably won't happen again, so over _multiple_ battles the Tigers will have the correct rarity. However, for this battle KD can get some Tigers without paying a premium. This particular battle will be a-historic, if considered against the Tiger's historic frequency, but that's OK. That's the way statistics work.

To sum up, and to put it another way:

If rare units _always_ have a preimum, esp. a hefty premium on the most-rare units, then over many CM:BB battles among non-roleplaying players we'd see the rare units showing up _less_ often than they did historically. And players who actually play most-historically and _do_ occasionally include rare units will invariably have fewer "combat effective" points than non-rare using player. Both those things are annoying.

However, since the point values are "fuzzy" then a competative player should be comfortable with paying that rarity premium. Actual scenario conditions vary - Sometimes a JS-2 really is worth 284 points, not just 212. Rarity should encourage players to only pick the rare items when they _need_ the rare items. (Which is at least somewhat realistic - assigning the heavy hitters to wherever they would be most usefull.)

And finally, looking at KD's figures, and reading Steve's later posts, I have to agree with Vanir - it looks like BTS is doing a good job with the figures. VARIABLE Rarity.... sometimes the game asks you to pay through the nose for a Tiger - so you don't get one. That's fine, they're supposed to be rare. Sometimes they're cheapish, and you get 'em. On the average, over multiple battles, the rarity should be right.

[Accuracy of main battle tanks]

From early on in the thread:

"Range (yards)___6-pdr____17-pdr

500_____________87_______98

1000____________33_______46

1500____________12_______20

2000____________03_______10

2500_____________________05"

I got curious, and did a featureless-map test. My side by side 6 and 17 pdr guns never had more than a 1% difference in thier hit-chances, as listed by the LOS tool. Tested against a static target at 500 to 1000m. What's going on?

On anectodal evidence: My little test also showed that it doesn't take an AT gun more than 2 shots to destroy a PzIV at the 500-1000m range, and that 6 pdrs are 300% more effective at getting kills such than 17 pdrs.

Oh, btw, I _did_ try searching previous messages for an explaination for seemingly odd accuracy results. Among other things I learned ALOT about the 14.5 Russian AT rifles and some interesting facts about locating enemy atrillary via listening posts, but I didn't stumble accross an answer to my question. I find it easy to believe that my question has been answered already... the problem is finding it among all the other answers.

[ May 06, 2002, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]