Cthulhu Dreams

If your playing historical battles, you don't need a finely tuned points sytem cause your playing historically. The only people to whom accurate pricing is relevant is to people playing QB's for the win.

In CM terms, the range of that sort of AT is 37.5 meters. What it represents is one guy legging it out a bit and chucking it (Apparntly) But for the future, say atleasy 40 meters away from the infantry.

Two seperate issues. @Monty's Double. Re: Stugs. People appear to agree they are uber in CM:BB in one situation or the other - consider the thread in Hints and tips forum for what I mean. The reason is because there is a disconnect between the real value of the stug and the price. This disconnect is caused simply because the stugs cannot be penned frontally by the soviet ATG of the period. No-one really whinges about them in CM:AK *despite * them being the same price in QB's, because the US guns can pen their frontal plates. The real value is different because of the weapons the opponent has. That was all I was ever getting at. @Dieseltaylor: I was simply suggesting you price units based on optimal play. Play isn't optimal if you choice units that are not suited for the opponents force, weather conditons or terrain are they? Of course you cannot legislate for bad players. I wasn't suggesting you do. After all they don't play optimally. Good point about the Valentine IX's though.

Rarity shouldn't enter into balance arguments. It's a function of history, not game play. People play with rarity in an attempt to approximate the actual worth of hardware like the tiger at the end of 42, or because they want a historical game. Historical games arn't about balance. Your point about cheapness is a bit meaningless. Lets say for the sake of argument it's balanced when the 85MM gun is introduced - it doesn't address the actual value of the stug related to the t-34/76. However this is all a dead letter, as battlefront are hardly likely to release a BB 1.04 patch with revised pricings for everything. [ September 24, 2004, 02:34 AM: Message edited by: Cthulhu Dreams ]

I frequently play Attack defense on combined arms - (Stug pricing is irrelvant to infantry only engagements, obviously!) and a stug used as a mobile ATG position when you have 76.2MM guns is alot tougher than when you have 85MM guns. Plus, pricing should only be based on the times units are effective, and if they are being choosen and used in an optimal manner. Otherwise you can make a case that tigers should be worth less than t-34's because they are worth less in night scenarios in the mud and in the rain on the attack, or something equally silly.

Err, there more is less is one. Scope out Mattmatts/jwxspoons chatroom at http://www.combatmission.com:8000/ It's for QB opponent finding, basically.

*scratch sratch* Why the heck are you talking about BMPs? If it's anything like any of the other 3d engines kicking about, there will be no bitmap files to be seen? Expect skins, models and they might be scaleable? Ie you draw them at super awesome detail, then if your PC cannot cope with that, it downgrades the detail until it's something reasonable? If the infantry models are "moddable" there is no reason why you couldn't do anything with them. No need for redudant BMPs or whatever - look at a 3d game on the market now - say UT2004 - you can add any number of models and skins to that. Edit: And seriously, this game is going to take a year to come out? We can expect to be a generation further ahead in terms of graphics, so the 256 meg awesome cards will be in the affordable, and the 128 meg radeon 9800 pros etc should be like, 100 dollars AU Load up far cry, or dawn of war or something, and have a look at the level of detail and what you can change! [ September 23, 2004, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Cthulhu Dreams ]

I'd like to note - this isn't what I was getting at. Consider only the purchase screen, I don;t care about the battle type etc. Okay, now, take 80MM stugs. They are the same price before and after 85MM guns are common for the soviets, but their actual worth has changed *REALLY SIGNIFICANTLY* Before 85MM guns, they are uber stugs. After 85MM guns, they are merely tough. This implies that the price of stugs was arrived out without consideration for the abilities of the AT weapons the other side of the table can get. I was just curious if this is the case. From the responses, the price was arrived it without consideration for the strength of the AT weapons on the other side of the table.

Actually - on the defense starting with casulties is great. You get ATG's with no real reduced combat value for half price. The casulties to the crew makes almost zero differences to their actual ability.

Actually, we are talking past each other a bit. What I was trying to say was the value of the russian 76MM gun changes *dramatically* with the introdcution of 80MM armored german tanks. Similarly, the value of those tanks changes drastically when the russian 85MM gun is introduced in quanity. I'm guessing that the BF formula takes no account of these "Breakpoints" - would I be correct in that statement. (Other breakpoints that spring to mind is the introduction of fausts to the german infantry, which if I recall recorretly does not change their price.) I wasn't trying to say that the formula ignores the combat capality of a unit redwolf, only that it takes the ability of a unit in isolation with no regard for the avalibility of a counter. To address the "scientic formula" consideration, I doubt thats the best option. QB pricing should only be concerned with balance and thats a matter for playtesting. [ September 19, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Cthulhu Dreams ]

Intresting. So this means no observation of the hostile capabailites where taken when considering prices? I've noticed that the real value of units is heavily dependant on the avalibality of the counter - and even then some units are priced very oddly (The soviet 152MM 64 point spotters spring to mind)

I was kind of hoping someone would chip in with what it actually was. It appears to be a rather formulaic construct, taking each weaponsystem in isolation, but I'm not sure of that.

Balancing QB prices to depend on the performance of the unit in the time period, rather than the current system which seems to ber constructed via a formula with no account of how good the thing actually is. These prices are only to generate a balanced battle, and hould have nothing to realism.

For the curious, does anyone know what the mechamism used to decide the prices of infantry/artillery/tanks etc in quick battles?

When did we ask for engine mods? Engine mods are like the difference between Q# and call of duty Real mods instead they "plug into" the existing physics and graphics backbone, and offer additional fuctionality. So for CM, you could let modders at their own units, graphics, terrian, game modes or whatever, but the physics would always be the same.

Simple. Actual mods. thats all I want. The ability to do the half-life or operation flashpoint, or medieval total war total conversion style mods. If you have that, you can do whatever you want with the game. You want fast grahpics for 500 mhz users? Mod it. You want high end uber sleek models and textures and terrian and everything? Mod that to. Want pacific theatre? Mod it. Want vietnam? Mod that to!

You needed on map mortars. 3 81 MM mortars firing for one turn will kill a gun in a trench if you have an ID on it's position. However FO's are totally useless at exactly the same operation. Engineers might have been useful, but once you killed the AT assets with mortars, you could just stand off with the tanks and blow him to peices.

Does the scoring system include how good your oppoent was? For example, if I secured a 70/30 victory over someone who was beaten in all his games, would that be worth less points that scoring a 70/30 victory over Walpurgis night? Just an idle question.

Does the scoring system include how good your oppoent was? For example, if I secured a 70/30 victory over someone who was beaten in all his games, would that be worth less points that scoring a 70/30 victory over Walpurgis night? Just an idle question.

Does the scoring system include how good your oppoent was? For example, if I secured a 70/30 victory over someone who was beaten in all his games, would that be worth less points that scoring a 70/30 victory over Walpurgis night? Just an idle question.

Attempted changing to the 4.1 set as someone else was using them, but that didn't fix it. However, dropping the refresh rate on my monitor to 60hz did. I have no idea why

I just upgraded my Feforce fx5600 to a new radeon 9800 PRO Whenever I alt tab out and back into the game, the screen goes black with just a mouse pointer and the ambient sounds playing. I can alt tab out and kill the process, but not get CM to work properly. Can anyone suggest a fix? I've read the FAQ, and I don;t have that windows hotfix - AA is set to application specific. Everything else is patched or updated to the max.

Some rule of thumb testing reveals that the hit prob and kill chance both drop off over the 500m - 1000 m gap, so it does appear that the game is using the correct data, and the labels are wrong:)

I always just assumed the dust was a fairly tallish plume, so my guys would have no trouble seeing it rise above the ridgeline. Like, if the plume is 100 meters high, the ridgeline isn;t going to totally block LOS to the cloud.

Pretty sure it's 20x20 meters.