TRPs are now really cheap - intentional?

[Drifter Man]

21 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Yeah I understand what you mean about fairness. Personally I try to establish what kind of game we intend playing before starting it. It's less fun when one side picks a sort of (semi) 'authentic' OOB, when the other player goes for a tank/rocket arty spam build (exaggeration to make the point extra clear).

House rules seem the best way to establish what both parties think is a fun and fair game. 

And of course opinions will differ among players.

Yep I think that's the key point. Talk to your opponent before you start.

[Bulletpoint]

On 1/12/2021 at 8:14 AM, SgtHatred said:

Not that it's all that much of a problem. It wasn't designed to be competitive.

If it's not designed to be competitive, what's the point in having a price cost for the units at all? Just make all units free and let the players decide what they can use.

On 1/12/2021 at 4:19 PM, Lethaface said:

One thing I'd like to mention is the defender has also access to TRPs for the same price. So, he can return the favor in a similar way.

Surely, but this essentially means infantry is much less viable than they should be.

I personally prefer infantry tactics, so I like using an infantry force with a few AFVs in support. But when both players have such cheap TRPs, it means I have to choose an armour force with a few throwaway infantry units just for spotting and sitting on objectives.

The attacker will have to do the same thing: load up on tanks. Then both players have to go for the biggest tanks they can get, because if the opponent does, and you don't, you lose.

Logical conclusion: Every game becomes a match of Tiger II vs Fireflies/M36 Jackson.

Anyways, as Drifter Man said, this problem can relatively easily be solved by a house rule. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of BFC that their TRPs are way too cheap. At the very least, they should have a much higher rarity cost, to reflect that not every commander had the luxury of having most of the battlefield ranged in by artillery.

[Lethaface]

6 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

If it's not designed to be competitive, what's the point in having a price cost for the units at all? Just make all units free and let the players decide what they can use.

Surely, but this essentially means infantry is much less viable than they should be.

I personally prefer infantry tactics, so I like using an infantry force with a few AFVs in support. But when both players have such cheap TRPs, it means I have to choose an armour force with a few throwaway infantry units just for spotting and sitting on objectives.

The attacker will have to do the same thing: load up on tanks. Then both players have to go for the biggest tanks they can get, because if the opponent does, and you don't, you lose.

Logical conclusion: Every game becomes a match of Tiger II vs Fireflies/M36 Jackson.

Anyways, as Drifter Man said, this problem can relatively easily be solved by a house rule. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of BFC that their TRPs are way too cheap. At the very least, they should have a much higher rarity cost, to reflect that not every commander had the luxury of having most of the battlefield ranged in by artillery.

I've never played a Tiger II vs Firefly/m36 Jackon match. Although I think one of my first (and few) CMBN QBs was a game where I bought 3 Tigers and the opponent got some Achilles. That was about a decade ago though.

With regards to reality I do think that most battles would feature Mortars, MGs and artillery to have registered before battle would commence. It's a routine for any defensive position: dig in and register / sight weapons to cover area's where potential attackers might assemble, chokepoints, etc.
Same goes for offenses I'd say; often those weren't organized over night but carefully prepared, including registering targets for artillery/mortars etc. These preparation logistics are largely outside the scope of CM. And usually the same goes for long preparatory bombardments.

Although I guess that TRPs in CMx2 combined with the overarching all seeing eye of the player can give an amount of control and coordination to fires which can be much more effective compared to the organized chaos I'd expect on the actual battlefield. Combined with limited defensive works available in CMx2 there is indeed a challenge to defend with infantry in maps with limited cover and plenty of TRPs . 

[Bulletpoint]

1 minute ago, Lethaface said:

I've never played a Tiger II vs Firefly/m36 Jackon match. Although I think one of my first (and few) CMBN QBs was a game where I bought 3 Tigers and the opponent got some Achilles. That was about a decade ago though.

Well you won't be doing any Tiger II matches in CMBN any time soon.. at least not before they fix the bug that makes it unavailable in quick battles

3 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Although I guess that TRPs in CMx2 combined with the overarching all seeing eye of the player can give an amount of control and coordination to fires which can be much more effective compared to the organized chaos I'd expect on the actual battlefield. Combined with limited defensive works available in CMx2 there is indeed a challenge to defend with infantry in maps with limited cover and plenty of TRPs

Just give in and agree with me, you know you want to

And yes, unless there's modular buildings for cover, infantry is toast because of TRPs.

[Bulletpoint]

5 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

With regards to reality I do think that most battles would feature Mortars, MGs and artillery to have registered before battle would commence. It's a routine for any defensive position: dig in and register / sight weapons to cover area's where potential attackers might assemble, chokepoints, etc.
Same goes for offenses I'd say; often those weren't organized over night but carefully prepared, including registering targets for artillery/mortars etc. These preparation logistics are largely outside the scope of CM. And usually the same goes for long preparatory bombardments.

I'm not arguing against the use of TRPs in reality or in the game. I'm saying they are too cheap in the game, compared to their effect.

[Lethaface]

1 minute ago, Bulletpoint said:

Well you won't be doing any Tiger II matches in CMBN any time soon.. at least not before they fix the bug that makes it unavailable in quick battles

Just give in and agree with me, you know you want to

And yes, unless there's modular buildings for cover, infantry is toast because of TRPs.

Hehe somewhat I guess . I'm not against making TRPs a bit more expensive but the exact numbers are, in the end, arbitrary imo. 

[Lethaface]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'm not arguing against the use of TRPs in reality or in the game. I'm saying they are too cheap in the game, compared to their effect.

I do agree  that QBs allow for setups which will make infantry less of the queen of the battlefield. Available infantry cover, price of TRPs, etc, all have their influence in the matter.

 

[SgtHatred]

8 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

If it's not designed to be competitive, what's the point in having a price cost for the units at all? Just make all units free and let the players decide what they can use.

Don't ask me, I didn't make the game. All I can tell you is that if I went to play Wargame Red Dragon or Starcraft 2 or any of the thousands of other competitive multiplayer games I can't do the equivalent of taking 50 rocket artillery batteries and 1 forward observer to end any game on turn 1. That makes me think it wasn't designed to be competitive.

 

You gotta set out some parameters ahead of time in QBs to have fun, which isn't really a problem.

[Bulletpoint]

14 hours ago, SgtHatred said:

Don't ask me, I didn't make the game. All I can tell you is that if I went to play Wargame Red Dragon or Starcraft 2 or any of the thousands of other competitive multiplayer games I can't do the equivalent of taking 50 rocket artillery batteries and 1 forward observer to end any game on turn 1. That makes me think it wasn't designed to be competitive.

I know you didn't make the game, and I'm not saying this to have a bitter argument, but just to muse a bit on the topic.

I think the game was intended to be quite competitive, since there are unit costs, objectives, victory points for winning and losing, etc. It's just that the competitive aspect wasn't very well done or thought out.

Chess is super competitive too, but you can cheat if your opponent turns his back for a moment. Or just bash over your opponent's pieces and declare victory (like doing a turn 1 rocket attack in CM).

There's a middle ground between "not competitive" and "if you win this battle you win a million dollars". In that middle ground, balance and unit price are still important, even if your opponent is perfectly honest.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Bulletpoint

[chuckdyke]

With TRP's your outposts and listening patrols can disregard the C2 network. Your FO sits conveniently in the basement of the castle and call in the arty on the TRP at any time. Whether he has communication or not. Up to you as the player to have some ethics. You just can't lose any defensive battles. We have the same issue in modern warfare with the helicopters. The TAC can call them anywhere at any time.