Jump to content

He's an officer Sir


Guest John Maragoudakis

Recommended Posts

Guest John Maragoudakis

Suppose we capture an HQ unit. Will we get any extra info on the enemy? Like getting the position of all enemy units at the time of capture.I say that since the HQ unit must have had lots of maps and intell info.

Would the maps and such take too long to interpret to be of value in CM's scale?

[This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 04-28-99).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

No bonus. At CM's level you generally wouldn't get anything more from an HQ than you could from capturing a couple of privates. And this is just too messy and arbitrary to simulate.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you intentionally go for a capture instead of a kill?

I'll answer this one myself: smile.gif

No, because if it happend it was extremely rare and it is NOT standard procedure for any kind of troop. (More spy-fare than warfare) smile.gif Not to mention the amount of recoding it would require.

Why I bother to ask is beyond me. smile.gif

Sten

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Maragoudakis

Well thanks for bothering Sten. True, a scenario like capturing a general would probably be rare. Something probably left fo commandos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That reminds me of a queastion I have been meaning to ask regarding victory conditions.

I thought of this back when BTS said there WOULD be snipers included.

My question is: will we be able to design scenarios where the victory condition (or one of them) is to off a particular enemy HQ?

That would be kinda fun I think, to have to take out a particular enemy unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Sten, I'll address your question first. There you go smile.gif

BDW, there are sharpshooters (a bit different than snipers), but no you can't do what you described. It would require some special coding to make that unit (the HQ) extra special. Oh, you could simply put a Sharpshooter up against an HQ and include no other units. Not fun, but it would work smile.gif

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, well then let me ask you this: does taking out an HQ weigh heavily against the party that loses the HQ?

Which leads me to ask, are some units more "valuable" than other units when it comes to tallying up the score at the end? If so, how are those values assigned? Do they vary depending on the scenario and circumstances?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

The loss of any HQ, but especially a higher up one, will not be a fun thing to suffer. First, HQs are there to make your troops move faster, rally better, hold steady, etc. So taking out an HQ hurts right away. If that wasn't bad enough, a unit's value is based on its importance on the battlefield. These values are used, in part, to determine the winner. Loose a Pershing or a King Tiger and get whacked heavily, loose a bazooka team... eh, not so bad. We aren't sure where HQs will fit on the scale (we haven't done that bit at all), but I suspect they will be at least equal to a major piece of hardware.

All values are determined by us and will be the same for all scenarios. However, the importance of a particular unit will be greater or lesser depending on the individual scenario. For example, if you only have ONE tank, the loss of it will most likely exceed the point value in terms of allowing you to win. Also, if you only have one tank, and tanks are worth the most, it will disproportionally count against your point total. So there is no need to have the points adjustable for each scenario.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 04-29-99).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of point values. I don't recall if this has been discussed before, but will 2 players going head to head be able to pick a map, then be given a certain number of "points" with which to purchase tanks, vehicles, squads, wire, mines, etc., based on meeting engagement, assault/defend, etc. type of encounter? I seem to recall the original Squad Leader game series allowed this type of play and it was rather fun. Would be nice to do this in CM as well.

Mike D

aka Mikester

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Yup, this is the plan. Many games have done this and for good reason; it works. Well, if the points are balanced it does. Guess that is why there is beta testing smile.gif

We probably will keep it quite flexible and not place restrictions on how many of what a player can have. However, we will make point values for rare stuff (like Sturmtigers) much more expensive than something common (like a Stug III). So if you want to blow all of your points on 2 Sturmtigers instead of a bunch of infantry and a medium tank or two, go for it!

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I could make a suggestion with point values. Vehicles like trucks and jeeps should be very cheap to purchase for a mission but very costly (in VP's). After all, these vehicles were super common (even for the germans), but players need to be discouraged from using them like suicidal car bombers (minus the bomb).

Thats really how I like to think of all units.. they have a price just to use them, and then another price if you lose them. A rare unit might be expensive to use because its so hard to find one, but its not particularly bad if you lose it.

The exception would be artillery, where its important to incorporate the ammo load into the starting price. I think its important to give the player control over the ammo loadout, especially for on board artillery. ("What, you want a SIXTY rnd barrage? Well just get two 82mm instead of one"). With offboard support I guess you wouldn't have much control over what you got.

With rare units, or unrealistic combinations, perhaps the player could be penalized with increasing buy costs? "Ohhh, you want 3 Coy's of flamethrower equipped sturm-pionnere... now are they going to ride on the King Tiger coy, or the Maus?"

It would be nice to see players reward for keeping their selection reasonably historical and not tailoring a force to the specific scenario.

Just some rambling thoughts,

Chris Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two nice ideas:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If I could make a suggestion with point values. Vehicles like trucks and jeeps should be very cheap to purchase for a mission but very costly (in VP's). After all,

these vehicles were super common (even for the germans), but players need to be discouraged from using them like suicidal car bombers (minus the bomb). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen this kind of thing happen, and suspect I'm not alone. This seems a great way to limit this sort of player fiddling.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It would be nice to see players reward for keeping their selection reasonably historical and not tailoring a force to the specific scenario.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also a good point. There is an incentive *not* to use historical formations, particularly against humans - it improves your chance of surprising them.

One simple way to implement this is to use a "discount" method for players who use historical TO&Es. Eg:

1 vehicle = normal cost

1 platoon = units at 5% 'discount'

1 company = units at 10% 'discount'

1 regiment = units at 15% 'discount'

(This presumes that the many of the historical platoons, coys, etc are pre-coded in the set-up.)

I think this would encourage the use of regular formations, but still allowing some degree of tailoring/cross assignment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rhet Schmidt

Steve, with regards to the StuG III as long as "common" does not mean ineffectual I don't have a problem with this system. The StuG III is one of my all time favorites AFV's . They were extremly effective in combat just ask the Russians smile.gif (smiley for BDW). This brings me to another aspect of CM. Is a low profile vehicle factored in to the spotting model? How are hull down applications taken into account for SP guns. CM tracks the location of tank turrets as well as the hull. Are SP guns modeled in the same fasion?

Chris, I think you may have over estimated the commonality of trucks for the armys of WWII. Motorized infantry units were the exception more than the rule. Mechanized units were rarer still. If an American infantry man made it from Normandy to Berlin he probably walked there. Even in the latter stages of the war Germany (pioneers of mobilized warfare) had not produced enough trucks to rid themselves of horses from the artillery. Most German soldiers took a train (advantage of being the home team) to an assembly point then walked to the front.

Trucks have been devalued by many games in the past (ASL for one) but, I believe that these values are based on combat effectiveness rather than commonality or cost of production of the unit in question. Your ideas on making support vehicles expensive to waste are good though.

------------------

Rhet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Don't worry Rhet, we don't screw around with a unit's real world abilities to suite game balancing. If a Stug III kicks butt in the real world (and it did), then it will in CM. Availability is a totally seperate issue. Stugs were common, KTs were not.

All vehicles, of all types, have a profile rating based on their actual real world height. This gives tanks like the Hetzer a noticable benefit compred to its much bigger brother, the Jagdtiger. Other factors like ground to weight ratios and overall mass come into play as well, especially for movement. Turretless vehicles are treated differently than turreted vehicles in terms of hull down. But it has been several months since the code went in and I can't for the life of me remember what the heck we came up with! So for now, trust us that we have taken it into account smile.gif BTW, turretless vehicles' guns can move L/R in accordance with their historical restrictions. Not only does this happen in the simulation aspect, but visually as well. You should see the US' Priest adjust its gun a bit to one side instead of moving its hull. Very cool...

Trucks are, as Rhet says, not as common as people seem to think. At CM's level of combat they are even less common. Because trucks are vunerable and largely restricted to road travel, they were usually not kept in the front line areas. Not always possible or desirable, of course, but usual. Because of this, we can see no reason why a truck should be cheap to buy, but expensive to loose. Should be expensive for both, though perhaps not exactly the same. We are thinking about that bit. However, it will be cheaper to buy a Duce and a Half than it will a M3 HT for sure.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...