QB Reinforcements

[Hamstersss]

Novel Idea:

Allow the player to purchase reinforcements for QBs at a lower cost than normal troops. The discount could be determined based on how long you have to wait (Not 1:1, of course). Eh? Whatdya think, guys?

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

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[M Hofbauer]

prima facie not a bad idea, and I stzmbled over it myself once.

However, I fear all this would do is simply capitalize on the completely gamey and unrealistic way that CM ends a battle, id est, after a fixed and predetermined amount of time. IOW, people would buy cheap 1/30th cost Kingtigers (or some similar stuff, preferrably vehicles with low ammo count) for that final VL rush.

maybe the idea would still be feasible if you introduced a certain window for these vehicles, say, from turn 5 to turn 20 for a 30-turn game.

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

"Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky)

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

Steel Panthers is experimenting with this right now. 4.0 has renforcement, not sure how to use them properly but i'm still experimenting.

[Hamstersss]

Hofbauer, that's why you would never do a 1:1 cost reduction. People may buy some reduced cost KTs for ~Turn 15 but the reason they are reduced in price is because you've spent half the battle without them.

Edited to fix my moronic misspelling of the honorable Hofbauer's name.

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

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 09-12-2000).]

[M Hofbauer]

Meeks, I am not in the beer brewing business, nor were my ancestors, so I'm happier with Hofbauer.

I never suggested a 1:1 reduction, I was just using rough figures to point out my...well, point.

second, the opera ain't over till the fat lady sings. A KT in turn 15 IMO has almost the same potential as if it were there form the beginning. Given the limited HE etc., they often run out of ammo in extended firefights anyhow. It would be really hard to find a formula to account for the reduction in usefulness. Why don't you suggest one so I can criticise it? - see what I mean?

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

"Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)

[aka_tom_w]

Well ok...

My first reaction is that winning the game at the END of the battle or sceario is what really matters.

OK call me gamey but I would say I would buy a small full price force then stock up on plenty of reduced price reinforcements, I really doubt the battle or sceario will be won or lost in the first 10-15 minutes if there are plenty of cut rate reinforcements on the way.

I would just hunker down, not advance and wait for the reinforcements. The more I could buy at a cheaper point cost, the better.

I understand the concept and the idea as it is suggested here, but I would say reinforcments later in the battle should be WORTH more than the orignal force pool because the come in late and are fresh and you have more of them when you really need them which is when you try to win the battle late in the sceanrio.

I would not support any reduction in the cost of reinforcements that enter late in QB's sounds like it has "gamey play" written all over it and I would maximize my purchase of cheaper reinforcements and then simply sit and wait for them to arrive, then make a quick and decisive attack with all my cheap forces and over whelm the enemy positions.

Thanks, but no thanks...

Again thats only my opinion

I think reinforcements in QB should have a higher point value associated with their purchase as they are MORE valuble late because they are fresh and have not got all shot up earlier in the battle.

IMHO

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-12-2000).]

[Hamstersss]

I definitely disagree that they are more valuable. To remove the firepower of those forces for 15 minutes, to remove so much of your combat effectiveness for such a long period of time, is worth something. They come in fresh but they also come in having caused no damage. Yes, they'll have their HE, because they won't have expended it. Anyone who has fought a defense or attack knows that every minute counts, otherwise you end up rushing forces and they get ambushed.

Here's my system, entirely SWAG, just so you can have something to bite into:

Decending scale from 100% to 75% as follows :

15/40 (1/4 of the way) = 100% the cost

20/40 (Halfway) = 90% the cost

30/40 (3/4 of the way) = 75% the cost

No later than 3/4, no earlier than 1/4.

Disclaimer: Just a 2-minute creation.

Edited because it really was just a 2-minute creation whose math was so poor you could have sold cheese off of it.

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

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 09-12-2000).]

[IntelWeenie]

I agree in principle, but I would make the cost reduction less.

Say, no more than a 10% reduction is possible.

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

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[Slapdragon]

At first, this seemed like a good idea, but now I am not so sure, mostly because of the KingTigers.

If the game had random units showing up at random times from a point pool on both sides, yeah I would buy it. Then full price / half price does not matter.

But in real life, reinforcements don't wait for the end of "the game", they get their watched screwed up, show up late, show up early, get reassigned, land on the wrong beach, get lost (well, rarely, but it happens) get caught by my two friends Art and Jab, take a pee break, and so on. The idea of 3 King Tigers or 3 Challengers, or 3 of anything rolling out of the mist on turn 26 right when they are needed the most but have been saved off board where my hunting Panzerchecjks cannot get to them.

From the point of view of a battle, anything other than random should be worth maybe 10 times as much, to represent the cost of keeping them safe in a pocket until the other forces are almost worn out.

[L.Tankersley]

Meeks lies! This is not a novel idea; it was discussed some time ago (Do A Search! ;p).

Another possible criticism is that forces purchased as reinforcements aren't vulnerable to being killed until they enter, so in some sense they might be MORE valuable entering as reinforcements. Probably more so for the defender than the attacker, but anyway.

[Edit: Ah, I see Slapdragon made essentially the same point. Move along; nothing to see here.]

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[This message has been edited by L.Tankersley (edited 09-13-2000).]

[This message has been edited by L.Tankersley (edited 09-13-2000).]

[Hamstersss]

Tank,

This idea may have been discussed before, but never seriously. Nothing is seriously discussed until I discuss it. The arguments against it are twofold:

1) The price is wrong. May be, no argument there.

2) Units arrive in the nick of time, they're not subject to attack, they don't use any ammo. This is just silly. You cannot say that units coming in later are more valuable or equally valuable. My best historically backed argument, though strategic in nature, are the forces held at bay when the allies invaded Normandy. I'm sure the allies were saying, "Oh no, the Germans got to hold onto their tank divisions, so they'll be full strength when we face them!"

Those 3 KTs didn't get to support your troops for half the battle and you're telling me that makes them more valuable? Those 3 motorized SS platoons had no chance to dig in and may reinforce a failing position and that means the defender gets a better deal?

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

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein