Another batch of opinions wanted!

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, this is a great discussion here. First off... thanks to everybody for contributing to it so constructively Now for my thoughts so far...

1. Looks like folks are pretty evenly split about "inherent value". I think I am tending to agree with the people NOT in favor of this change. Mostly because I am now thinking the other changes we are going to make (patches and CM2) will most likely do a good job attacking the basic problem.

2. I think Charles and I should go over the costs for any vehicle under, say 30-40 points. Although there was a pretty good formula for caluclating costs (transport capacity, survivability, ammo capacity, etc.) we might have made some errors. The M20 for example does appear to be not expensive enough.

3. The Rarity feature WILL BE OPTIONAL!! I put the word "optional" in each sentence in my description of the feature and thought that would premept worries about it becoming manditory. But that did not happen So I will say again... it is going to be OPTIONAL.

4. The Rarity system will be relative to each side, not the war as a whole. This means a StuG will be rare based on the likelyhood that a German force with armored support would have a StuG, not the likelyhood that it would have armor support at all. BIG difference.

5. The Rarity system will most likely be dynamic based on the type of force selected. This would make the chance of purchasing a King Tiger for backing up an infantry force far more costly than it would if the force were pure armor. Either that or we can just play around with the pool of points available for vehicels and armor. In the end either system will do exactly the same thing so the choice will most likely be made on which is easier to implement and balance.

7. The Rarity system will allow rare vehicles to be priced reasonably SOMETIMES. This means that in one battle you might not be able to buy King Tigers, but in another you might get some sort of price discount so that they are affordable. Giving more points is NOT a good idea since this would mean that you could buy more cheaper vehicles instead of the intended purpose of allowing the more expensive ones to be afforded.

8. I like the idea of buying "blind" based on TO&E. In other words, the player purchases a Medium Tank Platoon and CM chooses from a list of tanks that are allowed for this and gives you whatever it picks. You could get 4 PzIVs or 5 M4 Shermans, or you could get 4 Panthers or 5 M4A3(76) Shermans. This would be jus as good for infantry too.

9. Close Combat's rarity system is not something we are planning on duplicating. However, the way we are thinking of doing Rarity the same end result should happen WITHOUT the problem of running out of rather common stuff (which as Scott pointed out was a problem with CC). What do I mean by this? Say a Jagdtiger is 650 points and a StuG is 150, but you only have 500 to spend. This automatically "eliminates" the Jagdtiger from the purchase pool (even if it is still displayed, you can't buy it!), but you can buy 3 StuGs no problem. In other words, you can NEVER run out of StuGs, just the ability to purchase more armor. Effectively this means that you can always buy the common stuff, but not always the rare stuff. That is what CC's system tried to do but (as pointed out) didn't always succeed due to an artificial "x number of this in stock" system.

OK, probably enough thoughts for one post

Steve

[Mr. Clark]

He forgot to mention the MG jeep with a transport value...

Thanks "M" for checking! I thought I was going bonkers.

[Guest Turret]

I think there should be an option for CM2 (maybe a CM update!) to have historically preset OOBs. You would set the size, the period and the region and based on that the program would serve up an historically accurate OOB as if CM2 just swept the real battlefields. Fionn could playtest.

[IntelWeenie]

A clarification about historical rarity:

It would NOT have to reflect material advantages for one nationality or the other. It would best be a representation of how rare/common a vehicle was for THAT nationality/force. Thus, the allies would not get an advantage by having Shermans being super cheap compared to PzKfw IVs since there were a LOT more Shermans produced, for example. However, Pumas would be relatively more expensive than PzKfw IVs when factoring in their combat capabilities (same amount of points would buy more combat capability in a more common vehicle).

Yes, this would make the less common vehicles less common in QBs. Hey, that would be historically accurate!

I definitely agree that this should be optional for those that want to just play for the sake of playing.

Edit: Gee, nothing like having your views match those of the game designers!

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

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

-Dudley Do-right

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

[Offthewall]

I think the Idea of an optional rarity setting is a good idea. There are a couple of other things that I think would make quick battles more enjoyable.

1) When you are choosing the type of forces, have a "random" option, this would make it so that your opponent would not know what type of force he was going to face, I think it would add to the excitement and realism of the game.

2) Have a choice of "no restriction" which would enable the player to have any mix of armor, infantry etc. that he chooses.

[crumply]

yes, i think you should factor in a base worth for vehicles in determining values, rather than only comparing them to other vehicles.

[karch]

Great thread, great game.

This looks like a closed thread, but I see 2 options for handling the "rarity" factor. One is to change the price of an item making it more expensinve, hence prohibitive, when it wouldn't have been a normal vehicle for the time period. The other, less fun, option is to never change the price, but if the computer decides that JagdTigers of Super Pershings were not available, well, you don't get no JagdTigers or Super Pershings. This way there wouldn't be the option for an excessive number of Uber tanks if you were lucky. If you get the chance to buy them, it's at normal cost, otherwise you just can't buy them. I'm sure the SS were constantly "wanting" more King Tigers, but sometimes they just weren't available. If you want everything available all the time, just turn off the "rarity" option.

I know I have seen books on frontline aircraft availability month by month for Germany, are there equivilent tables for tanks and the Allies. The software could just view this data keyed by the date of the scenario and decide if a tank would have a chance of being in a battle or not.

Rambling a bit, but just my 2cents

Scott

[jshandorf]

I was just wondering if you considered just making the availability of a certain vehicle a random factor.

Depending on the force size and type (and any other variables) certain vehicles could be available or not available, or maybe you could limit the number to choose from.

Making the price adjustment doesn't make sense to me since a certain vehicle only has a certain amount of usefulness and if the point value is increased to high then it becomes pointless to even consider buying since you can probably buy several other cheaper units that can fill the role just as well.

Jeff

[Vanir]

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

7. The Rarity system will allow rare vehicles to be priced reasonably SOMETIMES. This means that in one battle you might not be able to buy King Tigers, but in another you might get some sort of price discount so that they are affordable. Giving more points is NOT a good idea since this would mean that you could buy more cheaper vehicles instead of the intended purpose of allowing the more expensive ones to be afforded.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm. If by this you mean that the cost of the KT will be randomly different from game to game, I have a concern. A person setting up a PBEM could keep "re-rolling the dice" repeatedly by setting up games until he came up with the cheaper KTs. His opponent would be at a disadvantage.

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

However, Pumas would be relatively more expensive than PzKfw IVs when factoring in their combat capabilities (same amount of points would buy more combat capability in a more common vehicle).

Yes, this would make the less common vehicles less common in QBs. Hey, that would be historically accurate!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I think it would make them extinct instead of rare. If Pumas cost more than Mark IVs when using rarity, who in their right mind is going to ever buy a Puma? This would be a problem with any unit that was very rare, but not unusually powerful.

A good rarity system I've heard about is where the first unit costs normal, but each one thereafter increases by a percentage based upon rarity.

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

8. I like the idea of buying "blind" based on TO&E. In other words, the player purchases a Medium Tank Platoon and CM chooses from a list of tanks that are allowed for this and gives you whatever it picks. You could get 4 PzIVs or 5 M4 Shermans, or you could get 4 Panthers or 5 M4A3(76) Shermans. This would be jus as good for infantry too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really like this one.

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

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).]

[Oompa-Loompa]

I just want know: Will the rarity system be OPTIONAL?!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Big Time Software:

The Rarity feature WILL BE OPTIONAL!! I put the word "optional" in each sentence in my description of the feature and thought that would premept worries about it becoming manditory. But that did not happen So I will say again... it is going to be OPTIONAL.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh........well......in that case...

Yeah! Hear, Hear! Harumph, harumph! [sound of noisemakers and firecrackers]!

I also agree that vehicles have an "inherent worth". However, please do not do a complete overhall of ALL of the CM vehicles! Just start off with the specific vehicles (and teams)mentioned above and "tweak":

-->the light wheel vehicles-off road issues

-->M20 > MG Jeep

-->MG Jeep > Reg. Jeep

-->MG Jeep < MG team

I'm flexible in all regards, but I really hope BTS begins with smaller adjustments to specific vehicles rather than adding another varible (e.g. vehicle value) to ALL unit calculations.

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

"Do not needlessly endanger your lives until I give you the signal"

Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Gregory Deych]

One issue with simply increasing price of a rare item: Nobody would buy them for low/medium level stuff. Puma is a nice piece of equipment, but if it costs 90% of price of a MkIV, I'll buy a MkIV. For heavy stuff it may work, because there is no "common" piece of equipment with equivalent or greater capability.

Available/not available would be preferable in this case.

[jshandorf]

I don't like the system where one vehicles cost X but 2 cost X+Y and 3 cost X+Y+Z. That doesn't seem to make sense.

Some people have mentioned that historically some vehicles only operated in groups such as the Jadgpanther. Also people have mentioned that Fireflies would some times only be found on groups of 4 or as the Platoon Commander for a bunch of Sherman 75s.

Instead of blind purchasing you could offer group discount offerings. So you could buy 5 PzIVs cheaper than if you bought them separately, or any other historically accurate combination. Therefore it would encourage these kind of layouts. Thus if you wanted to go with a more a-historical unit selection it would cost more.

Also maybe to encourage using it you could throw ina rare random factor that would allow say the leader of PzIV platoon to be a Panther or the leader for platoon of Tigers could be a King Tiger. You could do the same for the Americans.

Also as I mentioned before you can just make certain units available or not available or sometimes only available in groups.

Jeff

[pzvg]

When considering "inherent value" don't forget to look behind the scenes, eg; mg jeep vs mg team, ok with the team you have troops,backed up by supply,(not shown in game) armorers,ammo dumps,cooks,medical support.

mg jeep, all of the above, plus POL (gas and grease) mechanics,spare parts

So you see, the "tail" behind a single jeep is larger than the one behind an infantry mg team, which abstractly makes any vehicle more "exspensive" vis-a-vis a leg unit.

And as long as I'm grogging along, I too vote for a rarity system, since personally I find close-fought battles between the "regular" forces to be much more exciting than the "kill the uberpanzer before it wipes out the company" type.

(Of course, for true purists, one would want the truck drivers to bail from the vehicle if fired on, not hit, by any enemy unit, which would reflect the performance of real drivers of military trucks)

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

Pzvg

"Confucious say, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

[M. Bates]

NOOOOOO!!!!

This rarity system will just add complications and shut down choices.

[karch]

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

This rarity system will just add complications and shut down choices.

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

I agree it will add the complication of having both players decide on which system to use, and to explain to people the reason/use of it. But the only time I see it removing choices is when you turn it on.

Most of the time I want to fight with as accurate a force as possible without going through all the trouble of researching what vehicles can be used when. Of course, sometimes it is just fun to grab 5 king tigers and go stomping across a field!!

M, I understand what you are saying, but I think that the casual gamer will just leave it off, default, and the Grognards will generally leave it on.

Scott

[karch]

I have to say, given the option of new pricing or TCP/IP, if this new pricing is going into the same patch and this will delay the release of IP, then I say hold off the new pricing until the next patch or CM2.

Scott

[Slapdragon]

I think a tactitcal rarity system will work quite nice, and we can wwork it out easily so that no rerolling the dice happens just by having the person who generates the game first e-mail it away then the second person sees the units first or the purchase list first.

Tactical rarity system is not all that difficult to put into place. I can do one right now for 3rd Army. They hit the beach with M10 TDs and 75 Shermans and started getting 76 replacements while waiting for the breakout. M36 showed up in the pursuit although some were around before, but by Moselle, all but 1 3rd Army TD battalion was Jackson or Hellcat based. 10% of the 3rd Armies Shermans were E8s, all delivered at once by October 1944, and the Army progressively increased the number of 76 armed tanks until 75s were fairly uncommon by the end. By 1945 the M10 was essentially gone and the M36/M10 was the TD of choice.

Now, research like that into tactical usage for the ETO will result in a tactical chart rather than a produced chart.

The idea of buying platoons of tanks and then getting what was in them has a lot of merit also.

[Croda]

I like option 8 above, as well as Turret's idea for pre-set historically accurate OOBs. I think that would be a nice plus for those of us who enjoy the game more the closer it get's to historical accuracy.

[Juardis]

Just to get back to the jeep thing. Mr. Clark, in the unit table I have that some enterprising individual put together (that would be Jason McGrody, aka gauchi). The jeep MG has a transport class of 2 while the jeep has a transport class of 6. Both can carry a team. IIRC (I don't have the field manual in front of me), doesn't this mean that the jeep can tow guns while the jeep mg cannot? If not, what does it mean. Whatever the different transport classes mean, that's the difference in carrying capacity between the jeep and jeep mg.

Steve, thanks for giving more details on the rarity. Relative is the key word. A Pz IVH is common relative to all German tanks and therefore should be similar to a Sherman 75 in terms of cost.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Peter S]

Regarding No. 1: Great, I have no problems with these fixes.

No 2.: This 'Vehicle Rarity' feature in CM2 is great as long as you fellows keep it an OPTION! I would sooner have this Vehicle Rarity feature serve as a point of discussion (and/or argument) for prospective PBEM opponents trying to agree on battle parameters than have it permanently limit our purchasing freedom in all Quick Battles.

Considering the larger scope of the Eastern Front you fellows might also want to consider adding an option (I stress the word 'option') that would limit a side's vehicle selection to sections and/or platoon sized formations (pertinent to the type of force selected, of course), to further prevent massive gamey 'mixed bag' vehicle purchases in large scale battles.

Basically Jeeps should be cheap because they were! Whether or not a Jeep mounts a powerful .50 cal machine gun is irrelevant. Simply put, a .50 cal squad is rightfully more expensive than a .50cal Jeep because it requires 6 soldiers to operate it in the field. Those 6 soldiers need to be trained, paid, fed, clothed, cared for and transported. This is in addition to the bullet belts, spare parts, sidearms AND the .50 cal MG. In comparison, a .50cal Jeep (with the same armament, ammo and spares parts) only requires support for its two man crew and the gasoline and spare parts to keep the vehicle operational. In terms of the 'big picture' a .50cal Jeep was probably cheaper and certainly more cost effective to field than a .50cal squad (especially given the Jeep's extraordinary ruggedness and reliability). The offset to the cheap cost? Jeeps are also much easier to spot and more difficult to hide than a 6 man squad. And while quick, Jeeps are also unarmored, with the exposed crew being extremely vulnerable to literally everything under the battlefield's sun! Allow me to further champion the .50cal Jeep's low cost by using examples of non-combat hazards: potholes, blown tires, high speed fishtailing, hydroplaning, small quadruped mammals that bolt across the road at the last second and spook the driver, and lest we not forget the harmful effects of 'road rattle' on the crew after high speed dashes over crummy roads...

Lastly, penalizing a player simply because the side (i.e. USA) he/she chooses to play with had a knack for making reliable and cost effective weapon platforms (i.e. the .50cal Jeep) is wrong. Using this same logic should not the T-34, an extremely successful and relatively inexpensive and effective weapon platform, be much more expensive in CM2 than it was in reality? NO!!! I have said this before on the forum but I urge the BigTime team to not penalize the majority for the gamey sins of the minority.

[IntelWeenie]

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

[bActually, I think it would make them extinct instead of rare. If Pumas cost more than Mark IVs when using rarity, who in their right mind is going to ever buy a Puma? This would be a problem with any unit that was very rare, but not unusually powerful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, bad example. I meant that the "bang for the buck" for the rarer vehicles would generally be lower than for common ones.

Better example:

Two similarly capable vehicles (same base points, roughly same armor/guns). One is a variant that was somewhat rare. This vehicle would cost slightly more (how much more depending on how rare) than the more common vehicle.

How to keep interest in buying the rare vehicles? Randomize the rarity on a per-vehicle basis, unlike ASL where you rolled for a "ceiling" rarity factor that you could buy up to. Since this is on a per-vehicle basis, it could minimize the usefulness of "re-rolling" the setup of a PBEM, since you might get one rare vehicle that you want on the cheap, but other equipment might end up more expensive than normal.

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

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

-Dudley Do-right

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Steve,

You guys are doing a HELL of a job. I love the idea of being able to buy REALISTIC oobs without having to go do research at the university library.

Make realistic OOBs optional, and easy to use, and it will be a total hit!

I dont care for point tweaks, do them if you want, but the cleanest solution is to OFFER REALISTIC OOB's in the buying process.

Point tweaks are kind of like the US tax code. You can tinker around with deductions (point values) all you want, but someone will always find a short-cut, or loophole.

The realistic OOB option, where CM GIVES ME a realistic force is proactive. Point tweaks could have you chasing your tail forever.

[Fenris]

Summary of idea's post above by Steve look pretty good.

Haven't read the entire thread so excuse me if it's been mentioned.....

I reckon the rarity thing would be an enhancement to CM1's game play also and would like to see it added if possible.

Reg's

Fen

Edit - the blind purchasing of your formations is also a very good idea.

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

[willmontgomery]

I'd like to clarify something here:

As I understand it, unit "prices" are a function of their combat utility in CM and not their manufacturing cost, their rarity, or even their combat utility in a theater-wide sense. This is essential to play balance and scoring. Several posts earlier on this thread seem to be founded on a different understanding of the way "prices" are determined.

Now on to my opinions:

There are two "problems" with the current system: ahistorical OOBs and ahistorical tactics. By ahistorical OOBs I mean buying all PzKpfw VIBs and Pershings, ignoring historical availability. By ahistorical tactics I mean buying a bunch of Jeep MGs or halftracks and abusing them.

For ahistorical OOBs, the "problem" should be solved with a limit on the number of units of each type that can be purchased. This would be a function of date, force composition, total point pool, etc. Some units would be judged so common that there would be no limit, and for others you might not be able to buy any at all in many battles. Of course, this would be optional. There should also be an option to buy from a menu restricted to historically accurate unit compositions. BTS has done the research and this way the rest of us wouldn't have to, or rather we would learn from them rather than from other sources. I don't like the idea of clogging up the play balance and scoring mechanics by altering unit "prices". Then the game becomes somewhat less about tactical skill and somewhat more about encyclopedic knowledge of hardware and keen perception of the price vs. value tradeoffs. If the unit's on the menu, but the price might be different from what it would be if it were based solely on CM combat utility, then in order to be competitive I have to be an analyst and not merely a tactician. If that's not gamey, I don't know what is.

For ahistorical tactics, the "problem" should be solved by convention between players. Experience indicates that clogging up play balance and scoring to impose historical constraints on tactics also imposes ahistorical penalties on historical tactics. A halftrack is no good to me if I cannot afford to send it into harm's way. I was just thinking last week that one of the many things I like about CM is the fact that it doesn't handcuff me (like East Front et. al. do) with unit prices (VP values in EF) that were rigged for the purpose of tying the hands of people who might otherwise abuse those units. Leave that up to the players! Or making it an option would be OK I suppose.

[Eric Alkema]

One more vote for "inherent values". I am reminded of my favorite RPG (not Rocket Propelled Grenade, the other one), Champions. Every ability had a cost associated with it based on how useful it was. For a Jeep: it moves fast so that costs several points, if it mounts an MG that will cost some, if it can carry a team that will cost a few (usefull but not terribly), it's low durability costs almost nothing, it can't go into buildings or trees so either no cost or a discount depending on whether you are using infantry or vehicles as the standard, etc.

Good luck assigning costs, but once you do, you get what you pay for.