Another batch of opinions wanted!

[Dick Reece]

My vote is in as yes for the rarity factor,set as an OPTIONAL choice of course .I also think each and every unit should have a base value that is added to.One thing, this will cause the QB point ranges to be elevated equally, I hope.It would be nice to see some 3500,4500 etc. point selection capability in QB's as well.Lastly, it would be nice,if possible, to turn off the "force type" [x points for armor,x points for infantry,etc.] selection limits for QB's.Maybe this could become a function of the rarity factor ? "Force type"selection is limited when rarity factor is on,but unlimited when not ?

thanks for asking,

Dick

[dalem]

I am definitely in favor of an optional 'turn on the history' setting. I think that is the easiest conceptual way to keep both sides happy. Easy to implement? I don't know.

And are some vehicles worth more than others? Sure. An M20 AC with a .50 is worth more than a jeep with a .50 in almost every case, and definitely worth more than a jeep without a .50. How much more? That's why you BTS boys get paid the big bucks. (may Peng forgive me)

And I personally think that any attempt to do comparative point values between vehicles and infantry is doomed to failure at the CM scale. Is a tank with a cannon and a bunch of MGs worth 30 or 40 guys with rifles and LMGs? Sure, but not in the woods, and not in a city. Etc., etc., etc.....

Anyway, thanks for asking!

-dale

[Gregory Deych]

I think so far people are lining up very strongly for an optional "rarity" factor to be included (and for the record, I'd love for that to be in as well). Also, a selection of TO&Es for armor/Allied mechanized units would be awefull nice too. I consider myself a fairly knowledgeable gamer, and I can find those out ... but many people wouldn't know where to start. If putting it in the engine is a hassle, how about including them as an HTML document? Perhaps it's something that Madmatt is already doing, in which case you could just include it into the 1.06.

As far as the Jeep .50 goes, I also don't understand why a jeep with a MG costs the same as one without. This is definitely something that should be taken a look at. On the other hand, I feel that it's relative cost is about right. It's shortcomings balance out it's virtues right around 20-odd points. Not to mention that if you adjust the jeep, it may force a cascade of other changes...for example, hardly anybody would be a jeep at 35 points - why get a jeep when you can get a halftrack? And then the HT needs to be changed, which bumps up the ACs...you get the drift.

[Lawyer]

Yes to a reality setting to balance forces. Make it optional.

Does it make sense to compute unit value based upon whether the purchase is for attacker or defender? That factor seems to affect value. Just a thought.

[Mr. T]

I should have put this in my previous post, probably, but anyway...

A jeep with a .50 may or may not be more valuable on the battlfield than an .50 MG infantry team. Sure, if points were equivelant to the real life cost in money of the unit, a jeep should be worth more points. But points in CM correspond to the value of the unit related to combat effectiveness, correct? So everything in the game could be argued to be more or less point worthy depending on the context. So you have to take some kind of formulated average. Maybe on average, an infantry MG team IS worth more than a Jeep with an MG attached. BTS has developed the points formula to determine what "average" means in CM. If this "average" formula is off in some way, then modifications of specific variables might need to be made, or as is proposed in this case, new ones added.

For example, if mobility was never included in the formula, then maybe it should be added. That's a specific variable that can affect all units, and help ultimately decide whether vehicles on average should be worth more points. I'm just not sure that adding a base "vehicle" value is the best answer. Just because you have an MG attached to a vehicle doesn't necessarily make it more effective in combat.

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

[patboivin]

I haven't read this whole thread, but relative point values for units is a conundrum.

Sometimes it is impossible quantify qualitative differences. Apples and oranges. Someone tried to do that with AD&D fifteen years ago (the MonsterMark published in White Dwarf magazine, in the UK) but it had major problems. The formulas were complicated, and they used arbitrary values to reflect abilities that just could not be quantified. Also in the games I played, every time someone came up with a new way of using an ability the formulas were no longer "realistic".

Charles and Steve, I don't think you will ever be able to resolve this. Maybe once in a while look at people's comments and rule on the matter, but you will never get it down like you did with the armour and penetration stats.

I for one agree that vehicles should have some inherent point value, because vehicles do have an advantage over infantry: If they don't like where they are, they can leave. Infantry often has no other option than hunker down and wait it out, or try to sneak away on foot. Speed definitely matters.

Another reason, probably not part of the game, but for me as a player is that it costs more to build a vehicle than throw a conscript onto the front lines. So vehicles should cost more.

Re. MG jeeps, would it really be impossible for an HQ unit to climb into one? Just thought I should ask.

[Pak40]

DONT change the price of the .50 Jeep, here's why:

It may be cheap but it's life is short lived when compared to the leg .50 cal. - the .50 Jeep is easily knocked out and when it is knocked out the gun is useless. The leg .50, on the other hand can withstand lots of fire and mortar barages and still survive to fight .

DO change the speed of light wheeled vehicles such as jeeps and trucks (but not armored cars) when moving across open ground. They presently move too fast. There is a big difference between traveling on a flat road and on open ground. Slowing down the Jeep on open ground will help justify keeping the price where it is now. It won't be as valuable as a 'gamey' recon technique.

[Hans]

I'd agree with the suggestion that their be a free form and an historical form

I'd also suggest for QB that if you selected automatically. The computer would pick your equipment then display it for you. You would then have the opinion of keeping the computer selection or rejecting some units, receiving a lesser number of points for it. If you decided you didn't want a Stug at 88 you could turn it in and buy something else for, say 75 points, ie there would be a penalty for changing.

Additionally

"Sell" vehicles like the infantry, by platoon and section and let the rarity function pick what you get. ie you select a platoon of infantry, an AT gun section and a platoon of tanks. The computer lets you know what you get and as above you have the right of refusal (and buying something else) with lesser points.

Another idea. Place a list of all the units out for the mass committee of this board to vote on its "value". Some units are a good "package" while others are not. It might be of value to see how the grognards rate the various units and vehicles.

By the way don't forget those German & Russian transport horses in CM2!

Hans

[Juardis]

<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>

Outstanding!!! I'd be curious to know how you plan to implement that though. My suggestion (see the locked thread) is different than someone else's that's different from someone else's, etc. I love the concept though, but the devil's always in the details.

<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?

<snip>

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?

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As others have stated, the inherent value of a vehicle vs. cyber-soldier is dependent on the person. I like experimenting with different tactics and while twiggling the price won't drastically alter my experimentation it may result in me never using that tactic again. In other words, the jeep example involves tradeoffs. Speed, firepower, fragility, some transporting for the Jeep MG vs. speed, no firepower, fragility, more transporting for the Jeep vs. no speed, more firepower, survivability, hideability for the MG team. Tradeoffs. One may be better in one situation, another in a different situation. Leave it the way it is and let the user decide what's more valuable for the style he wants to play.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>do you not think that a vehicle has an inherent worth that should be factored in?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

Also, yes to an optional rarity factor, but I would rather that it not be variable. So the costs of the different units would not vary from battle to battle (beyond that required because of a change in the battle's date or setting).

[David Stone]

I think by their nature, and gamers use of them in "game terms", vehicles should have an inherent value associated with their "purchase points."

As for the QB rarity/historical stuff, I don't play enough of them to voice a noteworthy opinion.

Stone

[CavScout]

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah! Who would want that realism! Certainly not the Axis...

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

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The current play was choosen for gameplay. You can not have one side with a huge advantage in men and material and then have all your battles be "even". Yes there were battles at CM's scale were the odds were even, hell there were times when the Germans had more than the Allies, begining of the Ardennes offensive comes to mind, but I be that most battles saw the Allies with the advantage.

German players don't want historic battles, they want so called "even" battles because they know that in a so-called "even" battle they get an edge because of the general superiority of their equipment.

Cav

[M Hofbauer]

The reason why the regular Jeep costs as much as the Jeep with the machine gun is because the regular jeep has transport capacity (the MG jeep doesn't). Force projection and force multiplication.

An aircraft carrier itself is worthless. But it can carry airplanes to far away places.

That's also why the SdKfz 251/1, armed with only a measly 7.9mm machine gun, is so damn expensive - because it can get people to places. infantry, FOs, commanders for rallying, engineers, AT teams, machine gun and heavy machine gun teams, pull an AT gun etc.

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

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

[patboivin]

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

I'd agree with the suggestion that their be a free form and an historical form

I'd also suggest for QB that if you selected automatically. The computer would pick your equipment then display it for you. You would then have the opinion of keeping the computer selection or rejecting some units, receiving a lesser number of points for it. If you decided you didn't want a Stug at 88 you could turn it in and buy something else for, say 75 points, ie there would be a penalty for changing.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this, plain gaming vs. historical should be separated. If people modify units too much while in historical mode, there should be a penalty.

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

"Sell" vehicles like the infantry, by platoon and section and let the rarity function pick what you get. ie you select a platoon of infantry, an AT gun section and a platoon of tanks. The computer lets you know what you get and as above you have the right of refusal (and buying something else) with lesser points.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like this idea, sometimes when I pick my units I have no idea which ones go with which. We are falling into that historical vs. game-playing delineation again, users should be able to select historical (which would include rarity factors and "set packages" of units) vs. plain gaming (a la carte, paratroopers squads, Jeep MGs and supertanks everywhere.). Here is another plug for the Maus, the E.100, the Challenger, and the U.S. experimental tanks...

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

Place a list of all the units out for the mass committee of this board to vote on its "value". Some units are a good "package" while others are not. It might be of value to see how the grognards rate the various units and vehicles.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree with this, BTS has done a lot of research already, surely they have an idea already of how to rate units. The grognards might want to comment on the proposed scheme after it is almost ready, but a free-for-all debate could take years to resolve.

But then again it would keep this forum going.

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

By the way don't forget those German & Russian transport horses in CM2!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree with this, although I imagine modeling horses must be a nightmare. Heh heh.

BTS, again I think you are doing a great job, most game corporations would just have quickly put something together and released it onto the market. And they would just have wanted to determine the market potential.

You are asking people how they think you can improve the quality of your product! I haven't seen that done before.

[M Hofbauer]

just wanted to add on the reality thing:

if it's optional, it doesn't hurt anyone.

personally I would like a system remotely like cc2 where you can choose from a limited forcepool, the quantities available (=in the forcepool) are determined by a rarity factor plus a little randomization factor.

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

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

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>personally I would like a system remotely like cc2 where you can choose from a limited forcepool, the quantities available (=in the forcepool) are determined by a rarity factor plus a little randomization factor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the main problems I have had with this in CC is that there have been (many) times where I could not buy a historical force because I ran out of Rifle '44 squads or something...but still had those SS squads to but.

The other problem is that in a ladder game you can play the same person twice switching sides for balance only to have your forces restricted to PzIVs and he gets his choice of King Tigers, Tigers and Panthers (for example). Especially for ladder play, I would much prefer that randomness be removed from the force selection and just have CM adjust the cost making the more rare units more expensive.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Croda]

Concerning the 'Rarity' issue, I like the idea of having quantities of rare items restricted as opposed to having them being priced so highly that it is prohibitive to buy very many. That adds realism. Availability can be tied to date and number of points the game is set to. Obviously the item would have to be available as of the date, but as the war went on and more were produced the rarity would go down, but the price would still be constant based upon usefulness.

As for tweaking the prices, some should be. I personnaly only buy jeeps (MG or not), Scout cars, and the like if I have a few points left over after purchasing other units. They become filler to eeek out those last few points. In the game, they often if not always end up sitting at the rear doing absolutely nothing. I don't like to commit them forward due to their frailty. I would always take a .50 cal team over a Jeep MG. Not sure if that helps your thinking or not.

[M Hofbauer]

One of the main problems I have had with this in CC is that there have been (many) times where I could not buy a historical force because I ran out of Rifle '44 squads or something...but still had those SS squads to but.

that is not a problem of the system per se, but of How it is implemented. If done rightlym, there would be enough.

Just because someone builds an aircraft that doesn't work doesn't mean the whole idea/concept of aircraft is invalid.

The other problem is that in a ladder game you can play the same person twice switching sides for balance only to have your forces restricted to PzIVs and he gets his choice of King Tigers, Tigers and Panthers (for example). Especially for ladder play, I would much prefer that randomness be removed from the force selection and just have CM adjust the cost making the more rare units more expensive.

The rarity is OPTIONAL, ok? o p t i o n a l... that means ladder guys don't have to use it - voila.

It's like saying "I am not sure if the option to make a right turn in a vehicle is a good one. I might turn right, and turn right offf the street into a tree." If there's a tree, don't turn right. Easy.

Besides, there is another OPTION for ladder players. The option is called "get a life". Sorry, but "ladder" is a term which IMO is in the same category as "MS Zone", "Quake 3", "12-o'clock-flasher" and McDonald's - customer

ION, I really like the idea Hans put forward. Now, CM/CM2 will not be a business simulation, but the limited OPTION to edit the forces presented, under a penalty, does look interesting. CC2 worked that way too, if you rotated a unit out of your forces, you would get half that unit's original value back. Interesting.

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

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

[Mr. Clark]

Wait a minute...

I was not aware that MG jeeps were not allowed to carry teams.

Because of this, in a game last week (which I remember because I wrote it all out as an After Action Report to try to convince my friends to buy CM) I thought nothing of it when I loaded a Bazooka team onto an MG jeep.

I SWEAR it happened! Is this correct or incorrect game-wise? (bug?)

I loaded him up, drove him to an orchard, dropped him off, and then as it was pulling away the MG jeep took some mortar fire and the crew bailed.

Sorry if I sound stupid, but I'm simply confused...

[Guest Scott Clinton]

"M": Sorry, that doesn't cut it at all.

I want rarity, just not the kind in "Close Combat". But perhaps you are right and it could be done better than CC (actually I am sure it could be done better).

Maybe some units don't have a rarity at all? Thus in '44 I would never run out of Rifle '44 squads?

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[M Hofbauer]

"Maybe some units don't have a rarity at all? Thus in '44 I would never run out of Rifle '44 squads?"

exactly, something like that, I agree.

[Echo]

Since the point value of a destroyed unit is factored into victory determination, destruction of vehicles should certainly be considered more. A destroyed 50.cal team is a loss of manpower. A destroyed Jeep w/50.cal is a loss of men AND materials.

Not a real difference tacticaly, but if your point system is any reflection of a units strategic value (cost of production in man hours and materials), then this should certainly be tweaked some.

[Jarmo]

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

A destroyed 50.cal team is a loss of manpower. A destroyed Jeep w/50.cal is a loss of men AND materials.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if you also lose the crew. Often you don't.

Also, .50 cal team has 6 men, Jeep has 2.

[M Hofbauer]

damn, you are right, Mr Clark!

I could have sworn the MG Jeep has no transport capability, but I checked and it has! Is this new ?

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

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

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not a real difference tacticaly, but if your point system is any reflection of a units strategic value (cost of production in man hours and materials), then this should certainly be tweaked some.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite, but I don't think CM's point system is supposed to reflect anything beyond the effectiveness of the unit in a game of CM. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. If it was supposed to reflect production costs, etc Shermans (and all US vehicles) would have to be much, much cheaper IMO.

I think what BTS just wants to insert some sort of rarity into the mix. That way there arn't Pumas in every battle when they were, in fact, very rare (for example).

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

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