Another batch of opinions wanted!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Wow, your ISP goes down for 9 hours and you come back to find 128 answers to your question. Cool?

I thought it would be best to start up a new thread and close up the old one. The original thread can be found at http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/011026.html

OK, looks like the majority don't want vehicle prices changed (besides nitpicks on this or that vehicle). Those of you that do want some price changes aren't too taken with our initial proposal, so I gues that one is off the table. Here are some more thoughts...

TWO things are going to help out "disposable unit syndrome" in the future, but we still want to look at the "weaker" unit prices. The two things coming up are:

1. Fixes to offroad speeds and spotting ability while moving "Fast" involving light wheeled vehicles. The values used right now are not correct (more of a bug than a design problem). This will be patched in.

2. In CM2 we plan on having an optional "Rarity" system that will radically alter people's purchasing habits if used. This will eliminate, if used, many of the current unit mixes that break the game away from reality.

One problem still remains. Should a Jeep with a .50, for example, cost LESS than most MGs, mortars, and other support units? Heck, it only costs ONE more point than a Sharpshooter! The logic we used for determining vehicle worth is basically sound when two vehicles are compared to one another (i.e. 1 Tank Destroyer is = 6 Jeeps), but it looks like we should have factored in some sort of "base" worth for the simple fact that vehicles are different than any foot slogging unit or support weapon (i.e 1 Jeep w/.50 < .50 HMG team).

So putting all game related type questions, do you or do you not think that a vehicle has an inherent worth that should be factored in?

OK, with those thoughts in mind, let's see what folks have to say

Steve

[KiwiJoe]

YEP. I always thought it was strange that a .50 cal HMG team cost 26 points and an M20 with the same gun cost 23 points??? Sure the team get more ammo, but heck your basically getting the ac for free with the M20. Same with the m3a1 scout car... that gets a ton of ammo a .30 cal AND a .50 cal for 33 points. To buy both of those weapons as teams costs 44 points??? You should have to pay a decent amount for the actual afv without the gun.

[This message has been edited by KiwiJoe (edited 09-29-2000).]

[Vanir]

I don't have a problem with the current pricing as long as the unit functions realisticly. Obviously the jeep currently has some abilities that it shouldn't have, but that is going to be fixed.

The jeep is possibly the most fragile unit in the game. One hit from anything and it's dead. At least a sniper is good at hiding. A .50 cal team can take several casualties and still remain functional. The only way a jeep can survive sustained combat is to take advantage of its very fast speed, but that's about to get toned down. Also, the jeep's 25 rounds go fast. What's a MG jeep out of ammo good for? Nothing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve:

So putting all game related type questions, do you or do you not think that a vehicle has an inherent worth that should be factored in?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm a little unsure about what you mean my "inherent worth". If you mean something beyond the vehicle's measurable physical capabilities, I would say no. Also, if vehicle prices are scaled in relation to each other (as you implied) I don't see how you could change the cheap vehicle prices and not all the others as well (to keep relative values intact).

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

So maybe you should listen to this Vanir guy instead of ignoring him -- he has the best take on the whole thing. - Combatboy

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 09-29-2000).]

[Supertanker]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So putting all game related type questions, do you or do you not think that a vehicle has an inherent worth that should be factored in?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. The vehicle either adds speed or durability (usually not both in the case of cheap units). Speed is a force multiplier, and if the vehicle can carry another unit, then it is even more so. This is offset by the fragility of a light unit. For example, if I really need support for a position, I need the durability of a heavy MG team, and I'm not parking an MG jeep near it. If I want to get an MG into a position ahead to suppress movement across an area (denying a position to the enemy ahead of my main advance), I am sending the speedy MG jeep & not the slow MG team. I find halftracks to be a good middle ground between the two, as they have some protection and some speed.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

One problem still remains. Should a Jeep with a .50, for example, cost LESS than most MGs, mortars, and other support units? Heck, it only costs ONE more point than a Sharpshooter! The logic we used for determining vehicle worth is basically sound when two vehicles are compared to one another (i.e. 1 Tank Destroyer is = 6 Jeeps), but it looks like we should have factored in some sort of "base" worth for the simple fact that vehicles are different than any foot slogging unit or support weapon (i.e 1 Jeep w/.50 < .50 HMG team).

So putting all game related type questions, do you or do you not think that a vehicle has an inherent worth that should be factored in?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh wow, here we go again!

Well, to drop a couple more pennies in the cup, I'll start off by saying that I never understood why a jeep with a .50 on it cost no more than one without. Yes, an armed jeep, whatever its weaknesses, is obviously deadlier than an unarmed jeep. And that fact should be reflected in its point cost.

I think striking the right balance between the costs of all the units in the game is a problem with a non-obvious solution. I think you can tinker with it forever (and I would instinctively do so ) without ever achieving a final answer. I think it does in fact need some tinkering with at this time, and may need returning to from time to time in the light of greater experience with the game. But also at some point you and Charles are going to have to ask yourselves whether this is the most fruitful way to spend your time.

But for now, go ahead and make proposals. I'm sure I'm not alone in finding all this fascinating.

Michael

[Andre76]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

2. In CM2 we plan on having an optional "Rarity" system that will radically alter people's purchasing habits if used. This will eliminate, if used, many of the current unit mixes that break the game away from reality.

So putting all game related type questions, do you or do you not think that a vehicle has an inherent worth that should be factored in?

OK, with those thoughts in mind, let's see what folks have to say

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This proposal (rarity) can make a lot of players happy, but, for the the love of God, make sure to make it optional. (as you've stated)

I think all benefits should cost, as mobility, troop transportation ability and so fourth. So yes, vehicle has an inherent worth that should be factored in.

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

André

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Should a Jeep with a .50, for example, cost LESS than most MGs, mortars, and other support units?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, yep. The teams are more survivable. One point i'd like to make about a .50 on a jeep... it would be more common to mount a .30. Also, the arc of fire should be limited if mounting a .50... firing to the side tends to tip jeeps over (I've seen it done often enough).

[Mace]

I'd agree, the introduction of a rarity cost in the price will reduce the likelyhood of exotic equipment appearing as frequently as they do on the CMBO battlefield.

Also, the implimentation of a Base Cost is also a good idea to reduce costing anomilies.

Mace

Steve, posted at 3am in the morning? A game developer's work is never done!

[howardb]

I don't think the total costs between a Heavy MG and a Jeep is off mark. Consider there's more men, equipment, training, experience etc in a MG team. Costs involved in keeping men fight is continually while a Jeep basically only needs a little fuel now and then. That rarity option would be great, I remember it from Close Combat and I was always hoping for the best when I got to buy units. Top notch.

[M Hofbauer]

The reason why a 50cal team is more expensive than the same thing mounted on a jeep IMO is that a 50cal Jeep cannot hide in woods or enter buildings, or plain hide at all. The 50cal team has more ammo and is more durable.

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

"Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

My 2 cents on this...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

2. In CM2 we plan on having an optional "Rarity" system that will radically alter people's purchasing habits if used. This will eliminate, if used, many of the current unit mixes that break the game away from reality.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm beware of this ; OK, on the good side it gives more realistic mixes, BUT it has 2 drawbacks :

1- Should really some obscure obsolete tank become more expensive only due to the fact that it was rare ? Good way to never see it..

At the extreme, you can for example have a T34/A becoming more expensive that a B or C in 42 because there wasn't much of them compared to the other...

2- And it doesn't really affect "mixes", but only the frequence of the given unit... If you want to prevent "Russian Kampfgruppe" in 41 (ie combined arms -type mix), the real thing to do is limit formation combinations, not unit prices...

So please let it optional, I'm unsure I want it

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

One problem still remains. Should a Jeep with a .50, for example, cost LESS than most MGs, mortars, and other support units? Heck, it only costs ONE more point than a Sharpshooter

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that a vehicle cost should be based on a vehicle cost "base" + weapons : a MG jeep is much more fragile that a MG team, so should be cheaper.

But a jeep w/o MG should surely be cheaper than one with

[Oddball_E8]

Why not have an abstract cost for everything in the game and then just add them together to make the costs for units...

fx (not using any real cost suggestion here) 1 point per man, 2 points for .50 cal MG and 0.5 points per 5 ammo and a base cost for a vehicle based on armor and speed.

so a jeep w/o mg would have a cost for just armor(nil), speed and crew. while the MG jeep would have the same price plus 1 crew, 1 .50cal and 5x5 ammo.

that would work overall... i think

then again i have been known to make mistakes... from time to time.

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

Wof, wof, wof, wof... Thats my other dog imitation.

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Hmnn, I 'm not sure even as an option if the rarity ratings would be a good feature for the game and would overall it could prove to be unbalancing. Basically the favor would be tipped to the allies due to their higher production levels of equipment. It seems this scale of combat was chosen to ensure the balance of a battle which would not be present in larger scale conflicts. If the rarity rating were introduced, trying to maintain that balance would prove to be a very large headache IMO. You have a wonderful game as it is guys, please focus on TCP/IP and CM 2

Thanks

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Frenchy]

I think all vehicles should have an inherit worth. How some vehicle cost less than vehicles with less effective weapons seems a bit skewed...plus other examples already mentioned.

Good luck with getting this corrected. Hopefully a revamped unit purchase system can make it into CM2.

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

Webmaster

http://www.trailblazersww2.org

http://www.vmfa251.org

[Guest Rollstoy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If the rarity rating were introduced, trying to maintain that balance would prove to be a very large headache IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong. You still would get plenty of StuGs (common), but not quite as many Jagdtigers (rare) as you'd like to have. This, in fact, enhances the balance by reducing the number of heavy tanks.

As for the (very specific) MG jeep problem: why not couple the unit value to the type of your mission?

Attack: jeeps become more expensive, because they are more mobile and better suited for recon, i.e. the have a higher value for the mission.

Defense: .50 team is more expensive, because it is better suited for the defense (hiding, higher redundancy).

So maybe units could have separate defensive and offensive value (= cost). Just another idea that needs to be fine tuned!

Regards,

Thomm

[Guest Rollstoy]

Personally, I think that historically correct OOBs for tank platoons/companies would be the cleanest solution. Maybe you could make rare vehicles available only in those units who actually had them. This would certainly require a lot of research and a lot of tables. And, of course, it has to be optional !

Regards,

Thomm

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir:

The jeep is possibly the most fragile unit in the game. One hit from anything and it's dead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is somewhat changed with 1.05. I know that before the

jeeps and trucks died if you even pointed at 'em, but now a jeep

can handle several MG bursts just fine.

Yes, the vehicles have an inherent worth, but it should be temperd

by the much lower ammo load, and the lack of armor. So I'm not sure a MG jeep should cost

more than MG team, but

it should certainly cost more than a jeep without MG.

And M20 should certainly cost more than MG Jeep.

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The two things coming up are:

1. Fixes to offroad speeds and spotting ability while moving "Fast" involving light wheeled vehicles. The values used right now are not correct (more of a bug than a design problem). This will be patched in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds good to me, but why not look at spotting ability for ALL moving vehicles, too? (just in case )

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

2. In CM2 we plan on having an optional "Rarity" system that will radically alter people's purchasing habits if used. This will eliminate, if used, many of the current unit mixes that break the game away from reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely with this! I think your idea about a variable rarity would calm the fears of those who worry the Super Pershing and Pumas would never be seen again if rarity was included.

In addition to another suggestion I made a couple days ago about adjusting rarity/price depending on mission, how about adjusting it depending on force mix as well? Armor would be more expensive (relatively) when "infantry" or "mechanized" is choosen, and cheaper if "armor" is selected. "Combined arms" could be a de facto "base cost" category. Notice that this could be applied to individual vehicles, as well (StuGs and TDs would have less of a points increase than heavy tanks since they often supported infantry units).

Lots of modifiers, but I think the result would be worth it (and not too hard to code). The difficulty would be figuring out how much to modify unit prices!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

So putting all game related type questions, do you or do you not think that a vehicle has an inherent worth that should be factored in?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tough one. I would say they really don't have an inherent value, but I think this could be accounted for by what I suggested above regarding force mix modifiers.

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

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

-Dudley Do-right

[Henri]

I think that the "value" to a player of any given unit depends on the scenario, the circumstances, and a lot on the playing style of the player.Of course everyone supports correcting any bugs that affect the physical capabilities of vehicles, and it is true that you can control to a small extent player behavior by encouraging or discouraging the purchase of specific vehicles.

On the other hand, going to far can have unpredictable effects on the game, especially with respect to play balance. For example, let us say tht you make halftracks so expensive that no one would dream of using an empty halftrack for recon; the in a scenario where a player has to cross long distances with infantry to reach the objective (for example in Fionn's Alpha AAR), the attacking player is put at a serious disadvantage, having to make a choice between sending his infantry on foot and perhaps not even reaching the objective in time, or spending all his points to buy halftracks with nothing left to buy tanks and other support vehicles. (This is not a good example, because in this scenario the units are already given by the scenario designer).

It seems fairly obvious to me that any action to make fast vehicles more difficult to buy is going to bias all attacking scenarios in favor of the defender.

Henri

[Hemo2]

Normally I would say yes, that vehicles offer more worth. But it really depends on the vehicle and you can't just make a blanket change for all vehicles. So my preference is to not change this by factoring in additional cost/value for vehicles just because they are vehicles.

With regards to the .50 jeep, I think its' cost is about right as it is when compared to the .50 team. It's only advantage is its' speed, but has disadvantages because it can't hide, is more easily destroyed, and can't traverse all the terrain that the team can.

[Giftig]

I like the optional Historical OOB's best. This would let players agree on whether to play "real world" or "free form".

I also think that the idea of a base value increase for all vehicles - or maybe diff ones by class, or overall armor coverage - is a good idea.

[Bruno Weiss]

Well I'll try and stay on topic this time. I would have to agree with previous comments that a jeep with a .50 cal should cost more than a jeep without one. Not sure about the .30 cal vs .50 cal commonality, but it's a point that should be researched. So yes, I believe a vehicle has a basic worth factor that should be figured in. But carefully, there are some very good considerations previously stated in this thread.

I also agree with previous authors that when tinkering with bug fixes, (offroad movement speeds, spotting abilities etc.,) be careful. Small tweaks are more easily modified than full blown radical changes. I'd much rather have a couple of tweaks in a couple of patches to get it right, than a patch that attempts to grab the whole enchalada and messes up unforseen things. (Just a thought).

As to a rarity system. Yes, I'm all for it. But as one fellow stated, please make it optional. I'm one who would probably use it more often than not, but I do want the "option" not to use it when desired. It would be just one more thing to negotiate in PBEM, and so far I've found that my opponents prefer to negotiate scenario conditions. Certainly I do. It was a basic premise of AHIKS PBM that the two opponents negotiate their understandings of the game conditions prior to initiating the game. Problems occured from misunderstanding when that wasn't done.

Finally, I'd like to say how much I appreciate BTS asking. How many of the so called BIG companies out there do this regularly? Usually only during beta testing, and it is even more rare when they take the advice given. BTS is building a devoted following using the rarity factor of two way communications with their customers, thinking out of the box with their production methodology, and utilizing real players instead of marketing executive schmucks to achieve success. Well done.

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

"Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben"

Moto-(3./JG11 "Graf")

Bruno "Stachel" Weiss

[Mr. T]

I'm not sure if this is what your proposing but I don't think the formula should be changed to just add "vehicle" to it. price = original mysterious formula + vehicle. I think things like speed, mobility, and carrying capacity (which all partly make up the vehicle variable) should be taken into account separately. There are many different types of vehicles in the game, and I'm not sure that just adding "vehicle" to the formula would justly account for every one of them. There may or may not be another more specific variable that needs to be added to the mysterious formula, that would somewhat directly impact the price of vehicles, I don't know.

[Mr. Clark]

A jeep w/ a weapon should obviously cost more than one w/o, but should not cost as much as a team with the same weapon unless the vehicle is as ammo rich and resilient as the team. It's been my experience that an MG jeep is KO'd after one small scare...

[Daveman]

I think vehicles should have "inherent worth", but think this emphasis on .50cal Jeeps isn't needed... they should be cheaper than a team.

Here's an idea for a "rarity" system for CM2... one that I should think could even be patched into CM... have a choice at setup between 2 different price lists, the current one that reflects combat value, and a second where men and equipment are priced according to their rarity.

For the player who wants a "sandbox" WWII game (like myself) and simply wants to fight out battles with WWII men, equipment, and tactics the existing system works fine... you want a battle where the combat values are roughly equal.

For the historic-minded player, availability of men and equipment is presumably more important. Battles would be less balanced, and you'd have to guage Axis success by how well they did with what they had, but isn't that the point of playing "historically"?

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

“Fortune favors the brave" - Terence