Another batch of opinions wanted!

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, first off... would people just CHILL about the OPTION rarity feature? Jeeze, some of you are running around like a chicken without a head or are acting as paranoid as those fellas that think the UN is going to take over the US So I hope that this post will clear up the nature of the optiona Rarity feature once and for all...

It is REALLY simple to understand here. When we say that it is going to be optional, we mean that the player is going to have the choice of using it or not. The mechanics of having a choice is no problem, so we are NOT going to suddenly drop a bombshell on people and say "sorry folks, it was one way or the other so...". It will be optional.

Did I mention the Rarity feature will be optional? Just making sure

The other thing is that the optional Rarity feature will NOT be in CM1 as a patch. If we are able to retrofit CM1 to utilize improvements from CM2, then this optional feature will be included for CM1. And it will be... what is the word kids? Yes! Optional

The optional Rarity feature, which is going to be optional, will optionally allow you to optionally choose if you want to go for something more or less common, or splurge for something more expensive. MOST of the time this will lead players to buy the more common things because the "bang for the buck" will be so much better. However, you might have a particular battle where splurging on the expensive thing makes tactical sense. Say... investing in a flamethrowing vehicle for an Assault Mission. All of this, of course, is only an issue for those using the optional Rarity feature.

Now... I can't remember if I mentioned that this Rarity feature was going to be optional, so to be on the safe side I should mention that it will be, in fact, optional.

Hope that clears up all questions and concernas about the optional Rarity optional options at the players option to optionally use, optionally, in a game.

Optionally yours,

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-29-2000).]

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

This seems to me to be an avenue worth exploring, even if only as a set of OBs posted informally that players can refer to in arranging their games.

Michael

[82nd Airborne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 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"?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Daveman for Prez!

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

What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, now that I have HOPEFULLY addressed the issue of the Rarity feature being option , time to look at some of your comments...

Er... someone wrote this, but I forget who...

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

Bingo! This is EXACTLY what the Rarity system is designed to do. There were only 200 Pumas ever made. So, considdering you are going to be a minute part of a many million man army, fighting on 3 fronts during this time period, what are the statistical chances that you will have a Puma available to command? Extremely low. So the Rarity system will make the price so high that, by default, you don't really have a choice.

I suppose we could just remove it from the list completely, but that would eliminate all forms of player choice. Look at this example...

Puma

Base Cost - 83

Rarity cost for Feb 45 - 200

Panther

Base Cost - 190

Rarity cost for Feb 45 - 210

OK, obviously the Panther is the much better bargin. But why should we tell the player that the Puma is just too expensive to choose? I say... if the player wants to squander his points on a Puma, he is either an idiot or he has a reason for doing so. I don't think we should try and decide which case is in fact correct

As for play balancing this... piece of cake. We can make some educated guesses about real world likelyhood of spotting something on the battlefield and dynamically price it accordingly. In other words, it won't just be a x point increase if we stamp a unit (remember, we are talking ALL units here, not just vehicles!) "Rare". We can "fuzzify" it by degrees of rareness. So a JpzIV might be less rare than a Jagdpanther, but more rare than a StuG.

We can also randomly adjust, on a unit by unit basis, the prices to be less "rare". Again, this can be done to different degrees. So that 200 point Puma might cost 150 in one game, 100 in another, or 250 in another. This allows variable degrees of use of "rare" vehicles from game to game. Otherwise there would be too little variety, which would get kinda stale after a while.

Steve

[Juardis]

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

Bingo! This is EXACTLY what the Rarity system is designed to do. There were only 200 Pumas ever made. So, considdering you are going to be a minute part of a many million man army, fighting on 3 fronts during this time period, what are the statistical chances that you will have a Puma available to command? Extremely low. So the Rarity system will make the price so high that, by default, you don't really have a choice.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like the way you think Stevie. That's what relative rarity means and that's exactly how I envisioned it. I demand you make this optional though becuase I don't want to be forced to play something I may or may not want to play in a style I may or may not be comfortable with. Please say it's gonna be optional!

[IntelWeenie]

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

Now... I can't remember if I mentioned that this Rarity feature was going to be optional, so to be on the safe side I should mention that it will be, in fact, optional.

Optionally yours,

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you're saying we don't have to use it if we don't want to?

IOW, it's optional?

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

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

-Dudley Do-right

[Guest grunto]

<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. 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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With that in mind it does seem like the jeep .50 is priced about right.

On the one hand a thin-skinned vehicle has great mobility. On the other hand thin-skinned vehicles are more vulnerable to fire than just about anything else.

I do think that in my experience the .50 with 25 rounds outweighs the extra carrying capacity of the non-.50 cal jeep.

My contention is that the weaponless thin-skinned vehicles should cost practically nil, and that the jeep .50 is about right, especially with the patch changes which are coming.

In version 105 the jeep .50 is a steal but with the coming patch changes the points - 19? - would be about right.

In my opinion the non-.50 cal jeep though should be about 5 points, as should trucks.

perhaps the greyhound and the german armored cars should be lowered in cost, except for the psw234/3 which in my opinion is already priced 'just about right.'

the cost of the german 251/1 halftrack should be lower as the american m3a1 is superior in my opinion.

the addition of a kubelwagen with mg34 or 42 mounted would be welcome.

in any event, to reiterate my main point:

Anything that's wheeled and weaponless and thin-skinned should cost virtually nothing, especially in the new patch coming up.

Thanks for your consideration,

Andy

[willmontgomery]

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

I suppose we could just remove it from the list completely, but that would eliminate all forms of player choice. Look at this example...

Puma

Base Cost - 83

Rarity cost for Feb 45 - 200

Panther

Base Cost - 190

Rarity cost for Feb 45 - 210

OK, obviously the Panther is the much better bargin. But why should we tell the player that the Puma is just too expensive to choose? I say... if the player wants to squander his points on a Puma, he is either an idiot or he has a reason for doing so. I don't think we should try and decide which case is in fact correct.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It only eliminates player choice if that OPTION has been selected, and limiting player choice is the raison d'etre of that OPTION. If you just mess around with costs, then you risk having AARs tht effectively say, "The losing side fought brilliantly, but because the commander made an analytical error evaluating price vs. value on a key vehicle, he just didn't have enough force to win." I would like to be able to use an option that limits units to reflect historical availability, but I want to be able to do it without thinking. Take away my choice! This option limits my choices so I get more historical flavor, I gain the benefits of your research without having to spend hours on my own, my opponent and I don't have to spend time negotiating our different perceptions of historical availability, and everyone is happy. No one sees the battlefield before they buy their units, so it's rather silly to imagine that players might have some smart reason for wanting to overpay for particular units. All it can be is an error of judgment. If you must do it this way, then at least show the base costs on the same screen, so people are warned that they are about to overpay for a unit.

To sum up:

1) I would love a historical limiting option.

2) I don't want one which introduces an analytical burden to be competitive.

3) I think messing around with costs inevitably does this.

4) Limiting player choice is the whole point, so I don't see the problem.

5) No one sees the battlefield when they are buying units, so no one can have a good reason for selecting overpriced units.

[Oddball_E8]

Looks like everyone missed my suggestion as i have not seen any referance to it (good or bad)

so... here it is again:

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And then you could add any kind of rarity modification if you wanted to...

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

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

[This message has been edited by Oddball_E8 (edited 09-30-2000).]

[Guest Warphead-]

"1) I would love a historical limiting option."

Yepp, me too! Make the units cost as high as their battle-value is. And then limit their availability according to place/time/unit-type/and so on...

Maybe make the availability dependable from the size of the battle. One Puma allowed for 1.000 points, two for 2.000 point battles (just as an example). - Just "available". You still do not need to buy it but you can only buy the maximum.

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

"If you must do it this way, then at least show the base costs on the same screen, so people are warned that they are about to overpay for a unit."

Yepp, I agree. An absolutely must!

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Steve,

Are you guys still considering letting us "purchase blind"? or some feature that gives us generic historical forces?

[Renaud]

I'd like to cast my vote for a vehicle availability system based on rarity while continuing to base point costs on relative power/usefulness.

To me this means units would each have a percentage chance to show up on the unit purchase screens. The %% chance would be based on historical availability relative to all other vehicles for the time period of that QB. So a puma would still cost points based on it's relative effectiveness, but would only have a small chance of showing up on the unit purchase screen and only during those months and years when it was actually fielded.

This would add both more fun and more historical flavor at the same time. The fun comes from wondering what grab bag you will have to choose from each game, the historical flavor comes from having to assemble a force out of what a commander might have actually had available at that time and place.

I realize this is very much like what was done in CC2 and CC3. It worked pretty well. This is a 'no-brainer' so it's not plagiarazing imho.

Also, my opinion on the whole .50 issue about accuracy and lethality when fired from vehicles is that .50's in my experience are hideously hard to aim and control from a moving vehicle. Even the smallest bounce would sent bullets spewing aimlessly. This was my experience when firing the .50 on the move from the M1A1 commanders copula...and the m1 series is an extremely smooth riding vehicle. Jeeps were the most god-awful bouncy contraptions on or off road. You can break your neck in those things at even low speeds. I can only surmise that a pintle or ring mount on a bouncy ww2 vehicle would be practically useless off-pavement. I think a .50 fired from a jeep or halftrack or tank moving off-road is only going to hit things beyond 50m by rarest chance.

-Ren

[:USERNAME:]

Anyone know if certain soft skinned vehicles/armored cars had hard rubber tires? Ive never seen a pic of a 251 halftrack with a flat.

i know the germans went into hard rubber ruimmed arty but what about vehicles? What about allied armored cars? If ANY armored car had pnuematic tires it would haul ass as soon as any firing started.

Lewis

[Red Devils]

Not much here that I can add that hasn't been well spoken already. But I am in favor of a unit "rarity" point system. Thanks for asking CM.

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

I'm sorry, we haven't the

facilities to take all of you prisoner. Was there anything else?

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea!!! Good ideas!

Intelligent game designers. I can hardly believe it. Pinch me somebody, I must be dreaming.

Michael

[Vanir]

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

So the Rarity system will make the price so high that, by default, you don't really have a choice.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess I'm a little disappointed. I was hoping for something more dynamic than just (effectivly) getting rid of rare vehicles altogether. Somehow making them rare but not extinct. Oh well.

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

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 10-01-2000).]

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

I think youre taking it out of context, here's 2 quotes

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The optional Rarity feature, which is going to be optional, will optionally allow you to optionally choose if you want to go for something more or less common, or splurge for something more expensive. MOST of the time this will lead players to buy the more common things because the "bang for the buck" will be so much better. However, you might have a particular battle where splurging on the expensive thing makes tactical sense. Say... investing in a flamethrowing vehicle for an Assault Mission.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>OK, obviously the Panther is the much better bargin. But why should we tell the player that the Puma is just too expensive to choose? I say... if the player wants to squander his points on a Puma, he is either an idiot or he has a reason for doing so. I don't think we should try and decide which case is in fact correct <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not going to be removed from the choices from what he has said. It will be priced highly to reflect its unlikely appearance.

And I read somewhere that this whole rarity thing might be optional

[Ralph D]

Hi,

Just to add my opinion - I like the idea of an optional rarity cost. The idea of these units not showing up on the purchase menu based on a rarity factor is good, but I'd still prefer to see them, but at their vastly inflated costs. But whatever, I think it would lead to more historically accurate quick battles, if used with both players' consent.

Regards,

Ralph D

[Hans]

Sounds good but I wasn't sure on one technical point, will the option to be optional be optional?

[Splinty]

I'd like to know if the optionality of the optional option will be optional relative to the options optional option ie; the law of optional inverse options?

Sorry couldn't help myself.

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

Nicht Schiessen!!

[This message has been edited by Splinty (edited 10-01-2000).]

[Guest Michael emrys]

I think you've been doing too much speed.

Michael

[Hakko Ichiu]

Whilst going through the thread, I was struck by two different thoughts: 1) I really would like a rarity option, but only if that option is optional at the choice of the players by exercising an option, and by the way, can I buy options on BTS stock? 2) The various schema for rarity didn't really resonate with me. So, I came up with my own idea.

My point of departure was that I want the purchase cost of any given unit to reflect its capabilities, relative to any other unit of a given side. So if, for purposes of illustration, a Puma has the same combat capabilities as a Lynx, they should cost the same. Rarity ought to be a separate issue, otherwise those who pick rare vehicles will be penalized for being récherché.

Instead, each side should have a separate pool of rarity points, the level of which can be determined by the players beforehand, like QB points, or assigned randomly by the computer. Some units (e.g., Rifle '44, jeep, Panzer IVH) would have a rarity cost of 0, so one could choose as many as one likes, while other units would have higher rarity costs based on their availability at the time of the battle.

So, a Puma might have, say, a rarity cost of 150. If one is playing a battle with 500 rarity points (which would be quite high at that scale), then go ahead and buy three Pumas. But if you wanted to buy a Jagdtiger, which costs, say, 600 points, you would be caught short, even if you had enough purchase points to buy it. I would trust BTS and the beta testers to be pretty accurate with their assessments of rarity.

This system strikes me as a better way to handle it. Again, just because I want to play with a Puma, doesn't mean that I should be able to buy that many fewer rifle '44s because of the Puma's rarity value. It isn't that powerful a weapon, just a rare one.

Comments, critiques, suggestions?

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

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Guest Big Time Software]

Oddball_E8, the suggestion you made regarding adding up basic common elements to arrive at a total price is what the current prices are based on. Some have been tweaked up or down as a sort of "wholistic" modifier to keep vehicles balanced with each other using some gut level evaluation of overall effectiveness.

William, our proposed rarity option will greatly reduce your choices. If a unit is too exepnsive you won't/can't buy it, and neither will/can the computer. So the degree of thinking about the HISTORICAL aspect of a unit purchase is very nearly eliminated by the increased prices. The other problem you mention, which is wisely purchasing units like an expert consumer, is just as much a part of the game with this optional rarity thing as it is now. So since AARs like you described aren't appearing now, they won't once this system is in place.

Foobar, we can't say for sure that some sort of Blind TO&E purchase system will be included. This is a rather difficult thing to do since games are not set up around the TO&E for a formation being intact and whole. What I mean by that is you can have battles right now with only ONE vehicle in support or only 2 Platoons. We would have to do some rather fancy math to scale the historical TO&E for a unit based on game scale and prices. This might be too big a chunk to chew off for CM2.

Renaud, the proposed system does what you want it to. Unit prices will be randomly reduced towards their "imperical value" to allow players easier affordability of the rarer stuff. But our system has a much greater range of "rariaty" than what you propose. In other words, that Puma might show up as 83 points (imperical, base value), 100 points, 125 points, or 150 points. This produces a different degree of rareness each battle. The system you propose is more binary. Either you can purchase it or you can't.

Username, German wheeled vehicles did not have solid wheels like artillery and AT guns. I have never seen something like an armored car with a flat, but all these vehicles did carry a spare. I have seen a 222 with a blown apart tire in North Africa after hitting a mine.

Ralph, we are not planning on removing the item from the list. I think they should stay there, like you, even if you can't afford them.

Ethan, we kicked this idea around earlier on. It actually doesn't produce a different result than the system we have proposed. The "rarity pool" you mentioned is the same as the system lowering the rarity value randomly. The only real difference is that the rarity pool allows the player to decide if something rare is going to be affordable rather than the game system. I think it would be better to let the game do that or we might very well see King Tigers and JS3s popping up in every battle And because of the point pools for different unit catagories, you realy can't harm the ability to purchase Infantry by squandering all your Vehicle points on something like a Puma (at least no more than you can do right now).

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-01-2000).]

[Philistine]

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

{snip}

I suppose we could just remove it from the list completely, but that would eliminate all forms of player choice. Look at this example...

Puma

Base Cost - 83

Rarity cost for Feb 45 - 200

Panther

Base Cost - 190

Rarity cost for Feb 45 - 210

OK, obviously the Panther is the much better bargin. But why should we tell the player that the Puma is just too expensive to choose? I say... if the player wants to squander his points on a Puma, he is either an idiot or he has a reason for doing so. I don't think we should try and decide which case is in fact correct

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve,

Looks great, I have two questions (you can answer, at your option )

1. Will the base cost show up in the unit purchase menu, so that a person knows both base cost and rarity cost, as in your example? (This would have the effect of telling a player that the Puma was just too expensive to choose). I hope this would be the case.

2. In having the computer pick your forces, how will this work with the rarity option on? (if at all). I'm somewhat concerned in that I'm not sure if I trust the computer to make the kind of cost-benefit analyis in purchasing rare units at inflated costs (of course, I'm not sure I trust myself for that either...), or whether rarity will be taken care of by the computer by just picking a rare unit less often.

3. (Yes I know I said 2 questions, but no one expects the spanish inquisition...) How does the computer handle picking units now? Does it pick rare units less than more common units?

Thanks.

--Philistine

[Vanir]

crap

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 10-01-2000).]