Will the QB total unit cost error ever be fixed?

[Placebo]

Hi,

It took me a long time to notice this but it does annoy me now as I like small QB and the errors in the adding up unit costs can be so big ,it can mean the difference between an extra piece of arty or even a tank.

Is this error ever going to be addressed?

[womble]

Addition errors? Pics or it didn't happen.

Are you sure you're not just mistaking the "formation overhead" cost for an addition error? Every formation you pick has a "surcharge" of 50 points (in BN/FI; don't know about RT). But individual elements each have their own surcharge (it's 15 points per vehicle in FI/BN, but I'm not sure if it's the same for each "specialist team", or a lesser charge).

Another "price wobble" is the conversion from the "projected price" of an element in the "available" side, to the "actual price" of the element on the "active" side. This is usually because you've got "Typical" selected for the purchased units' soft factors, and those are randomised within parameters at the moment of purchase. So a Battalion that says its going to cost 2135 points might end up costing 2212 points because a few squads got assigned Veteran, and fewer squads in your actual Battalion turned out to be green than in the "example" shown when it was a "potential" choice, or some support weapon options got picked as more expensive choices (75mm ATG over 50mm for example, or on-map mortars vice off-map, or a mounted vs dismounted infantry platoon).

[Placebo]

Womble have you really never noticed this, when you select a battalion for example expand the unit list and delete some of the elements you get a total at the top for the battalion that does not add up to the sub totals for the troops you have left in the battalion.

Why would there be a surcharge that is not shown for the platoon cost but the total formation cost, what is this surcharge for?

[Lt Belenko]

That whole "surcharge" and "formation overhead" thang sounds like the fast talk at the end of Countrywide Loan commercial from 2007. taxes and insurance not included slightly higher in Alaska and Hawaii. Member FDIC.

I understand the variations in price due to random unit quality.

Can you explain surcharge further?

[womble]

Womble have you really never noticed this, when you select a battalion for example expand the unit list and delete some of the elements you get a total at the top for the battalion that does not add up to the sub totals for the troops you have left in the battalion.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. So yes I've 'noticed' this. And if you look carefully, you should, I believe, see that the figure at the top of the Bttn for the cost is equal to exactly 50 points more than the sum of all the component elements. Has been every time I've checked it.

Why would there be a surcharge that is not shown for the platoon cost but the total formation cost, what is this surcharge for?

It's for the Battalion. It's there to encourage you, for example, not to pick a Battalion of tanks, then trimming out all but 2 HQ tanks: that's less "cost effective" than picking two "individual vehicles" of the same type (the breakpoint is between 3 and 4 vehicles; I say 3 because of the flexibility and the opportunity to pick HQ tanks). BFC want you to use at least plausibly historical TOs, so the surcharge (either for getting a single team, or for buying a Formation) is there to encourage you along those lines.

I'm not saying anything about whether it's just, fair or effective. But if you want me to believe that the Bttn total is other than the sum of the totals for the subordinate units, plus 50, please take a screenshot (FRAPS is free) and plonk it on a sharing site and put the link here.

[Talespin Jim]

I've noticed it too. I thought it was a good idea to have a surcharge. The reason why, is because it makes it so that if you take a force that is solely a single formation as it would have been historically, you get a lot more for your money than if you pick a custom elite force. I for one am analytic enough and mathematically proficient to the point that I guarantee you that I can hand pick a customized set of troops that will trash any historical army and is perfectly modified for the battlefield I'll be fighting on (assuming I am playing myself or someone of similar skill level), and I can do it without paying for a bunch of headquarters that were generally structured to be more cumbersome than helpful--which in it's own way is self-defeating, but that's another issue.

However, such a hand picked force just never existed on the battlefield. Commanders were given a pack of troops made up of what was on hand and they were expected to make it work and do the best with it. I feel like strongly weighting in favor of cookie cutter formations gives you a feel of this. (It also appears to me that the formations you can pick from there are more like what actually existed on the battlefield, rather than what the nations TO&E professed they were--for example, officially a platoon of Tigers I believe was five Tigers, but in reality they were usually one to three tigers and maybe they might have some older, lesser tanks like PzIV's or maybe even Stugs to fill the ranks--And you don't find a platoon of five Tigers for sale there.)

Also, because it makes you want to pick troops that are all in a proper command structure. If I could pick troops the way I wanted, I would custom design a platoon with plenty of attachments under it that would round out its combat ability for precisely the set of circumstances I was going to be using it under and that was not the way each nation's TO&E was organized. So this allows you to do that within limits but makes you pay a penalty for it that is just prohibitive enough to make you not want to indulge yourself except maybe in one tailored branch of your force (the fifty point charge for a formation comes out to far, far less than the fifteen point charge per unit you custom select and place somewhere in that formation).

I come from the old Squad Leader board game purchasing system and used that a lot and we always found that letting you buy whatever you want willy nilly, with no penalties allow you to buy ridiculous forces, while buying by rarity actually makes for ridiculous forces too, just ridiculously generic. So this is giving you something in between. And so far, I'm thinking it is a pretty decent compromise between reality and your ideal fantasy force. I still think it would be great to add in a few more formation options with upcoming improvements/modules, if there will be any.

It is unfortunate however, that making this system work causes the math to not add up correctly as you see it on paper. That will get under the craw of guys who have to have everything add up. But it also kind of adds a fun element into it by trying to cut to meet your budget too, so it kind of represents the fact that forces were almost never tested in battle as well as filled out properly at the same time, they were always in a process of flux--at least that's what I imagine.

And I took a Countrywide Loan and saved a ton of money. At the end they were giving fantastic interest rates and doing loans without any protocol, practically giving them away. I just made sure not to go for a predatory one and negotiated down my closing costs. Of course then wound up getting my loan taken over by B of A which is one very predatory bank and exactly who I was refinancing to get away from (by the way, we have $10K stock in BofA and my wife worked for them for a lot of years. They were a good bank and then some great high muckity muck retired and the whole thing turned into a very hostile, evil bank, so she left, I closed my accounts and switched banks and refinanced our loans and would have sold the stock but my wife wouldn't let me. So there's more than one gator in that pond and this one is still swimming.--And I should stipulate that my BofA comments are on the bank as it existed a decade ago--I have no idea how they might have changed today.)

[Placebo]

I feel a test coming on, i will dust off my calculator and let you know.

[womble]

I feel a test coming on, i will dust off my calculator and let you know.

Top show

[ridethe415]

They were a good bank and then some great high muckity muck retired and the whole thing turned into a very hostile, evil bank,

I think that's when they left San Francisco for North Carolina. The CEO was known for being one very miserly, ruthless guy. There is a "rock" (art installment) in front of 555 California St, formerly known as the Bank of America building. They call it the bankers heart. Black and cold.

/end trivia

[GreenAsJade]

LOL - classic case of "that's not a bug, that's a feature".

It's been that way since CMx1

[John Kettler]

womble,

A formation surcharge? There's a logic here which escapes me. Historically, QBs have been beset by the cherry pickers, for whom BFC's antidotes were Rarity and making it cheaper to buy entire formations rather than purchasing willy-nilly.

ridethe415,

Chilling! And I quite agree with the sculpture's characterization.

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

womble,

A formation surcharge? There's a logic here which escapes me. Historically, QBs have been beset by the cherry pickers, for whom BFC's antidotes were Rarity and making it cheaper to buy entire formations rather than purchasing willy-nilly.

John, you'll notice that there is also a "single unit" surcharge, which you pay on every unit that you purchase "willy-nilly". Just for you, I went and checked, and it's 15 points for every "specialist team" or "individual vehicle" So the break-even point, as I said in an earlier post, is, mathematically (there are other considerations: HQ units and TO details), between 3 (45 surcharge) and 4 (60 surcharge) "cherry-picked" elements. If you want more than that which can come from a single formation, you're best to pick the formation (50 surcharge).

Sure, you can build a platoon out of Scout Teams and AT Teams and Breach Teams (there aren't any "rifle teams"), but it'll cost you as much as two or more platoons of Formation-bought infantry.

Rarity doesn't have a great deal to do with stopping cherry-picking; rare things in formations still cost lots of Rarity points.

I do, however, agree that the approach is a bit confusing, since "points value" is meant to represent "combat effectiveness" (in a broad sense). Having an MG assigned at platoon level rather than at company level doesn't seem to increase its combat effect by 50% (which is the approximate effect of the 15 point surcharge). I'd rather see "specialist teams" have a bigger rarity cost mutiplier. Maybe one level up for "things the formation has" (the aforementioned MMG team at platoon level rather than company), two for "things they might have" (.50cal dismounted in an allied formation that has half tracks; zook teams using the weapons from jeeps not present on the field), three for "things that are definitely added from outside" (MGs over and above the establishment for the formation; tanks at platoon level). This could apply to arty, too, so that it would be prohibitively expensive in Rarity to stack division-class assets on a small infantry force.

[Apocal]

This could apply to arty, too, so that it would be prohibitively expensive in Rarity to stack division-class assets on a small infantry force.

That runs into balance vs. historicity arguments, since small American infantry forces could call on their divisional artillery no problems, Germans had their regimental pieces and Soviets had... mortars? Maybe light field pieces?

[womble]

That runs into balance vs. historicity arguments, since small American infantry forces could call on their divisional artillery no problems, Germans had their regimental pieces and Soviets had... mortars? Maybe light field pieces?

How often was DivArty assigned to a platoon CO, though? A single platoon CO in a platoon-level (Small/Tiny in CM terms) action, I mean. Sure, if the platoon was part of a larger operation to which Div assets have been assigned, they have the tech to make the call.

[JonS]

small American infantry forces could call on their divisional artillery no problems

Same with the British. Indirect fire is great in that - if you set the C2 arrangements up properly - the effects (that is, the rounds on the ground) can be shifted by kilometres in minutes if needs be, unlike infantry or armour which take hours and hours to move anywhere.

Artillery is great, but it isn't magic. If DivArty is being employed over there then it can't being firing here at the same time, and there is never enough to keep everyone happy, so someone is going to have to go without. In QB terms that means pay the higher price, or go without. That's the point Womble is making.

Edit: sniped by womble

[Apocal]

How often was DivArty assigned to a platoon CO, though? A single platoon CO in a platoon-level (Small/Tiny in CM terms) action, I mean.

Assigned? Never. But it was relatively rare for platoons to operate independently, so they'd generally be tied into the fire support network and from there they could call for it.

Artillery is great, but it isn't magic. If DivArty is being employed over there then it can't being firing here at the same time, and there is never enough to keep everyone happy, so someone is going to have to go without. In QB terms that means pay the higher price, or go without. That's the point Womble is making.

I agree that its fine from a balance perspective for QBs, just don't pretend its realistic to restrict divarty from small infantry forces across the board - it was an entirely common thing for platoon or company Americans to call down a battalion (or more) of divisional artillery to repulse attacks - more common than using their own mortars or regimental cannon companies on a rounds fired basis.

[John Kettler]

womble,

Thank you for the explanation. I still don't understand why there should be a surcharge for purchasing a standard formation in a QB, given that's the desideratum? Is BFC seeking to model, say, Murphy's Law, Clausewitzian friction and G & A (General & A) all in one pass?

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

just don't pretend its realistic to ...

Well, there's your first mistake: QBs aren't realistic anyway

[Apocal]

Well, there's your first mistake: QBs aren't realistic anyway

QBs are just as (un)realistic as standalone scenarios.

[JonS]

You are welcome to your opinion. As am I.

[Placebo]

Well is seems RT is works as intended (+50 surcharge per battalition). Not sure about the logic of doing this. On a large battle it will make no real difference but on a tiny/small battle where you want to make use of every point is quite a penalty.

I have just finished reading Tigers in the Mud and it seems that tanks supporting infantry or vice versa was the norm at a local level, especially when the Germans we creating adhoc battle groups with whatever is available in 1944-45. So i do not think there should be a penalty in QB

[womble]

Assigned? Never. But it was relatively rare for platoons to operate independently, so they'd generally be tied into the fire support network and from there they could call for it.

Well, duh. Platoon QB actions (which are the only ones relevant to the discussion, since rarity is irrelevant in scenarios) aren't necessarily representing platoons operating "independently", but in the context of "some other" unpsecified action. But how often would a platoon, sent to, say, sieze a small piece of woodland, get to call in the divisinal assets, rather than back off and turn the attack into a probe, ready for when the Company's on line to push up? Rarely, I'd contend. The rarity and points value are a substitute for context. If they don't represent the common context, they're not doing their job.

[Apocal]

Rarely, I'd contend. The rarity and points value are a substitute for context. If they don't represent the common context, they're not doing their job.

I contend the opposite, that the most common circumstance was those minor actions having artillery support (generally div arty) available as long as they had a functioning radio. Points and rarity are a straight performance/balance variable in-game, some nation's infantry called for their howitzers more than their mortars but the latter are cheaper in points (and occasionally rarity as well) and therefore more commonly encountered, relatively rare, but poor vehicles cost less in rarity than their outstanding (but no less numerous) counterparts, etc.

(http://www.5ad.org/units/47AFA.html)

The correctness of this information soon was apparent when a strong patrol

from the 46th Armored Infantry Battalion which had moved to the north to

test the enemy's defenses, ran into a hornet's nest of 88 and 75 high

velocity fire from these AA guns converted to ground use. Our observers

with the patrol requested fire which was immediately delivered and good

effect obtained.

(http://newspaperarchive.com/us/arizona/phoenix/arizona-independent-republic/1944/08-19/page-5)

Corporal Richard Boehm, St. James, Minnesota, school teacher and Privates Frederick Heid, Erie, Pennsylvania and James Beale, Petersburg, Virginia, were out on a three man reconnaissance patrol and noted the counterattack by some 100-150 Germans, supported by artillery from high ground. The patrol called for artillery fire on the enemy column, and since no artillery observers were there, the trio personally directed the fire. They directed the artillery on the column with three test shells, and the guns did the rest. A battering barrage of 110 rounds were slammed on the position.

(http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/library/books/wwii/greenbooks/bulge/0371.cfm)

Near the three or four houses of the hamlet of La Neuville a bridge still spanned the Salm, covered by a platoon roadblock on the east bank. At dark a German column of tanks (or assault guns) and infantry approached the bridge, The platoon called for artillery, engaged in a short exchange of fire, withdrew, and blew the bridge. Four large enemy fighting vehicles remained at the bridge site when the rest of the thwarted column turned away. They were too close for shellfire; so a four-man patrol armed with Gammon grenades crossed in the dark to deal with them, but as the patrol reached the east bank the tanks turned and lumbered off. During the evening enemy foot soldiers also tried to sneak across the wreckage of the railroad bridge south of Trois Ponts, an attack quickly ended when shellfire caught them right at the river.

(http://www.veteransofthebattleofthebulge.org/2012/03/12/al-alvarez-7th-artillery-battalion-task-force-davisson/)

During that first week of January, we (7th Field Artillery Battalion) carefully, in conjunction with the mortars, fired in support of a patrol attempting to retrieve the body of LT McLaughin of “L” Co. KlA’d days previously.

Like I said, for balance its fine, having to contend with every German infantry platoon minus being able to call down 105mm would get old in QBs, probably as fast as facing Tigers or IS-2s every QB. It just isn't realistic to restrict the ability of small infantry forces to call upon artillery many levels higher than themselves.