Historical availability modifies price in person on person purchase fests.

[Slapdragon]

This has more to do with competition play and not personal level v computer or v office mate games.

In discussions with another gamer, I heard an interesting story. He was playing a QB designed by points rather than random (which I prefer for ladder play). By the end of the game it became apparent that he had fought a British unit with 3 Fireflies and no other tanks. Likewise, horror stories of fighting the guy with all KingTigers or all Jumboes from time to time arise.

This led me to an idea. In random QB picks, the price of the unit is the price of the unit, and if your nasty Sherman A3 is facing a Panther -- deal with it or die trying. No one is going to call you a wuss because you fail to take out the Panther when the best you have is a 75, and next game you may have a Jumbo facing a Stug.

But in purchase QBs maybe how common the unit is should effect its value or the ratio of other support tanks needed to buy it. That way it would discourage the practice of loading up on Jumbos.

Of course, this would not effect the historical scenarios.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

This has been discussed here before (like just about everything else under the sun)...but I disagree.

And to quote an email I just fired off about this:

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

While I agree that in reality the rarity of weapon systems was critical, I don't think rarity SHOULD be a factor in games of CMs scale. I will try to frame this point of view in two ways.

Firstly if rarity WERE used in the point system it would be COMPLETELY unbalanced the game in favor of the allies...just like the situation was historically. Using the engagement we are fighting now as an example it is easy to illustrate this. I don't have the data but I would bet that the number of M4a3e8s in the ETO in 3/45 was at least 10 times the number of King Tigers. So...if rarity is not used at all in CM (and it is not AFAIK) either the M4a3e8 (on this date) would have to become MUCH, MUCH less expensive or the King Tiger would suddenly become a two or three THOUSAND point tank. I think you can see how this would not work. Also, I think it becomes clear that the value of weapon systems would change as they became more or less common based on historical numbers irregardless of their actual effectiveness on the battlefield.

This leads to my secondly point: The relative rarity of a weapon system in the ETO has absolutely no bearing on the actual effectiveness of that weapon system on the tactical battlefield. Sure, there were damn few King Tigers in the ETO and for every battle like the one we are fighting there were a dozen just like it...minus the King Tiger (and most likely several other units I took)...and the Germans lost those battles. But where is the balance or the 'fun' in playing games like that? But most importantly IMHO, is that once the battle is joined it is irrelevant if that tank is rare or not in the ETO as a whole, the important thing is 'it is here now'. The only thing that should effect the point cost of units in games of CM's scale is the weapon systems effectiveness in the battle at hand. This is the main reason why I think rarity has no place in a game of CMs scale.

This is the same logic that is used to justify almost every point system I have ever seen in tabletop miniature wargames. The use of historical rarity in determining the cost of units will force the game to historical outcomes by its very nature. Who wants to play a game where one side loses 90% of the time?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

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

[Rattus]

The uberpanzer Hotchkiss 39 is a very uncommon tank (almost extinct ) - should it be much more expensive because of this?

[aka_tom_w]

"This leads to my secondly point: The relative rarity of a weapon system in the

ETO has absolutely no bearing on the actual effectiveness of that weapon

system on the tactical battlefield. "

Yes, I agree with that statement completely. Rarity should not really be a factor.

-tom w

[Slapdragon]

Well, here I have to disagree that it would create an unbalanced game, simply create one in which escalation was controlle to some extent in competition.

Now with the random chooser -- I have no problem with combat level parity. If they get a King Tiger then great! There are tactics to deal with one, either by close assualting the puppy or peppering it with Sherman fire and getting an M or A kill on it.

In your counterargument, you posit a price based on ratio from allied to german tanks -- which would be absurd if it was used. Why not think of a more usuable system that does not prohibit, merely discourage buy lots of the heavies.

All sides doles out their heavies. Panthers were fairly common, as were all marks of M4, but the Jumbo was one to a company or worse, and 2 Jumbos would be like seeing a two headed snake, sure it happened, but only in rare assaults that had the eye of the Division commander. Fireflies were one to a platoon. Comets came in bunches near the end (the bunches were rare but they deployed at platoons) but even the Pershing was doled out in the beginning.

I just remember the escalation that occurred in Squad Leader when GI and COI came out. You go to Suncoast Skirmishes for some back room tourney competition, and sit down to the design your own. In the beginning, people would bring their historical OOB, buy platoons and companies, and go at it. Then there was a creeping escalation, as the German guy decided it was easier to win with all Elephants and King Tigers, people quit playing Americans, and switched to British will all 17 pounder armed vehicles. Soon, a build your own competition was no fun anymore because you could predict what the other guy would have right down the line, and you new to play you had to counter or die an early and glorious death. Instead of being rare and fascinating, by 1990 the descendent of the Skirmishes that played informally in Clearwater, it was rare to see a Sherman tank, while only a fool bought a Stuart or MkIV. I saw more JSIII versus King Tiger clashes than I care to remember. Competition was dead.

So now as it is I stick historical matches, and just refuse to play design your own ASL. This same thing could happen in CM. As for the Hotchkiss: It was common only in the first month of the war in Normandy, then it should probably be more expensive since they were all dead or lost at Falaise (at least according to Gerbner).

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

[Teamski]

It's also funny, now that you HAD to mention SL, That in the designer's notes for the game, they mentioned that AA Half Tracks were given their high rarity factor in the game because in the miniature wargames at that time, the players were abusing them and had loads of 'em in play. Funny that the same happened in SL. If you look, there's another thread covering this by Fionn's "short 75" rules. Check them out! They seem to be a pretty fair fix.....

-Ski

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

"The Lieutenant brought his map out and the old woman pointed to the coastal town of Ravenoville........"

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In your counterargument, you posit a price based on ratio from allied to german tanks --which would be absurd if it was used. Why not think of a more usuable system that does not prohibit, merely discourage buy lots of the heavies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, so you would prefer a system based on historical rarity...but not REALLY based on the ACTUAL historical accuracy because that would unbalance the game, right?

If you don't base it on the true rarity then what do you base it on? Once you depart from valuing the unit ONLY on its effect on the battle at hand you have to base its value on something other than judgement.

I don't want to sound too harsh. I know EXACTLY what you are talking about, and I sympathize and basically agree with your feelings 100%. But making rare units more expensive just because they are rare is not the solution IMO.

I would prefer (if a change was to be made to the game) a rarity system like that used in Close Combat where units were made available for purchase based on rarity. So the actual cost of a King Tiger would remain the same, but the chances of you being able to actually get one in a DYO would be slim (i.e. it would not be in the unit list when you purchased your forces).

Currently, I just set ground rules up front. In the last game I started I think we agreed before we started that no more than one Tiger for the Germans and one Jumbo for the US. It can be a pain to list all the 'rules' but if you want the battle to have a more historically typical mix of units that is the best way I know of.

BTW 'Slapdragon' I will gladly play you a PBEM game. You can set the ground rules based on historical avail. of units and we can go at it.

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

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 09-13-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-13-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

Let me get done with the two I am in now, and I will whip you any side any time (go team go team!!)

No, I agree with your comments -- although a historical pricing system would not be based on the number of American tanks versus the number of German, but only availability as an expressed precentage of the side it is from, or some form of limits to tactical reality -- Namely lots of Panthers are OK, but not lots of Jumbos -- just did not happen.

You system would work also. It could be jinxed to some extent by just redoing the scenario until you got your Jumbo, but that is not so bad since eventually people will twig.

Better yet- It could be a setting level: Grognard, Regular, and Munchkin, then the people who wanted to play at any level could do so. Play at Munchkin level and King Tigers cost 1 point to a maximun of 20. Regular is just as it is, Grognard placed realistic restrictions.

[PzKpfw 1]

This is one area that I have never understood, CM is a tactical simulation of Westren Front combat that models about all the maj units that were historicly involved.

Yet ppl want to put limits on unit availability based on production numbers as units such as the TigerII, Firefly, Jumbo's etc, effect their PBEM's by introducing what could be considered a 'gamey ' or ahistorical numbers of vehichles, due to low numbers produced, it is considered rare etc, & can shift the 'balance' to their opponets favor.

Now I would like to adress just how do we define rarity?.

Concerning Tiger II: 197 total were deployed in the West, on the surface it appears that 1 could generaly expect never to see a Tiger II based on this number.

The reality is quiet diferent though as

these vehichles could and did appear all over the Westren front in Abt strength as in Arnhem or the Ardennes. Or in Plt, Co, & finaly operateing in pairs in Kampfgruppen strength as in late 44 - 45, as the Tiger II's were taken from training areas etc , they could & were virtualy encountered all over, in defence or spearheading local counterattacks as in the Rurh pocket battles, in despite of its rareity, based production figures. And this doesn't even adress the Tiger E.

Jumbos: were usualy deployed with 1 leading an advance , but were also seen in Plt, & Co strength. Another little known fact is over 200 Shermans were feild converted to Jumbo status, in 44 & 45, which increased their presence & availability beyond the production numbers which are generaly used to determine rareity on in most generated rules.

Fireflys:, originaly operated 1 per troup and were useless vs Inf as they had no HE capability until Sept 1944, so they were strictly AT orientated, but someone more imformed would have to comment on what would be ahistorical useing them in pairs etc. As a 'rarity' base one could add that as of June 23 1944 only 109 Fireflys were in France but by May 1945 21st Army Group alone had 1,235 Fireflys vs 1,915 75mm gunned tanks.

Not 1 76mm Sherman: was involved in the Normandy landings or initial fighting, nor was their parity any better by Sept 1944 Ie, 12th Army had a total of 1,913 Shermans of which only 250 were 76mm. Yet its considered 'fair' to use them in numbers in PBEM etc, @ earlier dates because of the German Panther. 76mm Sherman availibility steadily increased till the end of the war, to the point they were nearing operational numbers of 75mm Shermans.

So basicly if you want an Historical game before Sept 1944, even later in some cases you would see PzKpfw IV's, Panthers, Stugs & Marders, Tiger E's etc, with an occasional Tiger II. Vs basicly M4 75mm Shermans some 6pdr armed tanks & 76mm TD's & as a 'rareity' factor; a very few 76mm Shermans, Fireflys, & Jumbos, are thrown in if you choose to use production as a basis, sounds exciting playing as the Allies doesn't it.

My point in all this is numbers can be decieving when compareing production data to actual feild use & availability. And decisions on what players decide to use should be left up to them & their opponets.

And as a final note concerning PBEM ppl generaly play to win, so expect to see the best equiptment they can buy ahistorical or not, or determine the force structure before play.

Regards, John Waters

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

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-13-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

I guess the solution is just like ASL -- Munchkins fight Munchkins in Munchkin Tourneys with 8 King Tigers, Grognards fight Grognards with whatever is at hand -- and the rest of the games are historical so who cares (really) who wins (Playing a hopeless defense is a lot of fun -- I used to be partial to playing the Partisans in the Warsaw Scenario in ASL.) The tactical availibilty is what I was talking about -- what did the units have in the field -- and I still am for balanced games, just against Munchkin contests.

That said, I should also stress I do not want to remove the chance of two Munchkins getting together and going all out with the Munchkin thing -- if it makes them happy to Munchkin then I have nothing to say about it.

But for me it is sort of like Soccer. Sure having a bing dumb guy on your team run down the goalie is good strategy -- especially if you can break the goalies knee cap and get him out of the game. The other team can get a big dumb guy to and break your goalie's knee cap. And we can get a big dumb guy to defend the goalie and maybe a big dumb goalie. But when you need lots of big dumb guys busting knee caps to win rather than the fast agile guys scooting down the corners -- then I am out of the game. For me, I leave when at any cost Munchkinitis kills tunrs any contest into a slugfest.

Scott, I can play you it looks like this weekend (if it is ok with you). Lets do a random-random and see what turns up.

[PzKpfw 1]

The whole 'historical' premise doesn't hold up under scrutiny,in the end the Allies are forced to use inferior armor, & the Germans have better armor in the Panther etc, if you choose to play historical anyway

Which strangely enough mirrors the actual historical situation the Allies were faced with and yet they still won despite the uber 'munchkin' forces.

Climbs on Soapbox

*Setting Gamer classification standards are biased IMHO as their based on the 'Grogs' opinion of what is ok to play & what isn't. Ie, a 'grog' knows whats best, and anyone who doesnt accept the 'Grog's personel definition of an historicaly accurate setup is an inferior wargamer.

This is an perfect example of the eliteism attitude towards everyone that many self titled "Grogs" so often display.

But to each his own

climbs off Soapbox

*Note: This is not directed at Slapdragon etc, it is a general statement of my personel opinion on gamer classification in general.

Regards, John Waters

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

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-13-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

Oh, one more thing-- I never said it was fair to load down with Sherman 76ers, and I am not against facing a wall of Tigers or Panthers -- That is more historical than knowing that in every tourney game you play only the best comes out to fight. I am for tackling a couple of Panthers with my 75 armed Shermans -- I will have two of them for every one of his.

[Maastrictian]

So here's my crazy idea. I have no idea how this would be implemented, but lets say it can be. (BTW, I recognize that this will never be incorporated in to CM1. Perhaps CM2)

So the goal is to have people field "reasonable" forces.

First compile a data base of the frequency of use *on the front lines* (no counting AAA that was part of front lines units but never fought on the front line) of every weapons system in the game (including infantry and support). Assume, for the sake of arguement this can be done.

Second, implement a system where the points are variable, similar to an economic model. The goal of the program is to make all units be used at the percentages determined above. Each time some one plays a battle with too many KTs the price of a KT goes up and the price of everything else goes down. The degree of change is proportional to the historical imbalance.

Third, instead of having each computer have its own little economy, hook up all computers via the web. BTS manages a central unit cost data base (economy really) and when you start a QB your computer access it to see how much units cost today.

Eventually the invisible hand will make it so that players will tend to buy the historically accurate gear. Not because it is historical, but because it is the most band for your buck.

Just a thought, flame on.

--Chris

[Slapdragon]

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

*Note: This is not directed at Slapdragon etc, it is a general statement of my personel opinion on gamer classification in general.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heck Waters, I ain't no Munchkin -- nothing anyone can really say offends me, no need to point that out -- you amke a good argument that I disagree with (and having sat down to many uberfests against 6 King Tigers I think I can even give you a scientific definition of Munchkin rather than a subjective one -- I will work on it tonight!)

Anyway -- before anyone jumps to my defense and this gets out of hand I am a big boy, and as long as the Nazi lovers, bigots, and that sort stay out of my posting vision I never take offense at anything. Not even Abbot blowing up my Cromwell (the bastard).

[Maj. Bosco]

I don't know what point value you're playing in your QBs but the price caps on the individual types of unit (armor, infantry, support etc...) seem to prevent the kind of behaviour you're talking about. Unless you construct the scenario in the editor you're probably not going to have that many KTs. If you do then they're also not likely to be as effective as if you had a KT or two with support tanks.

By just making the better units more expensive and preventing players from sinking all their points into tanks or anything else they fairly effectively curtailed the type of behaviour you're describing IMO.

If you want truly hard-core historical accuracy then don't play QBs, make scenarios based off actual combat. Munchkining of this type is not something that needs to be addressed in the game though.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Slapdragon: Are you registared on www.thegrognards.com ?

If not, sign up! You should qulaify after this thread IMO

Anyway...sign up, log your ICQ and the next time I catch you on line (ie this week end) we can have a go.

See you then!

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

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

[Slapdragon]

No, I belonged to the Panzer Leeader group before the Grognards existed (1988) but I have never joined the online version of that ancient and defunct mailing list.

As to points value, no linear point system will ever model the edges well: In other words in tight hilly country the King Tiger is worth what it says, but in somewhat open ground it may be worth more: If you kill a King Tiger while loosing 4 M4A3(75)W people will pat you on the back and say damn good exchange, but the King Tiger is only around 2 for 1 points wise.

[Maj. Bosco]

I was under the impression that germans got better values for their tanks because they had better tanks. The allies get much better values for their smaller vehicles and halftracks. The .50 cal machine gun costs less than the german heavy machine gun but we all know how effective it is. The points right now tend to balance each other out in the long run even if there is no immediatly apparent 1 to 1 ratio.

[CavScout]

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

Yes, I agree with that statement completely. Rarity should not really be a factor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah! If it was we'd have a lot less of them German players.

[PatAWilson]

I don't know about the "all KT" thing. I have played several PBEMs and I have yet to encounter or use one. As Germans I have used Stugs, Hetzers, Jpz IV/70s. My opponents have generally used the same. As allied I used Sherman 75s, 76s, Fireflys, and a Churchill once. The 76s and Fireflys were used at a 1-2 or 1-3 ratio to the 75s. Once again, my opponents have tended to use the same (+ Stuarts).

Moral of the story:

A. Play like minded people.

B. If it bothers you then set expectations before you get into the game.

[Moon]

I'd like to second what PatAWilson has just voiced - I don't know about you guys, but I rarely see an all King Tiger or all Jumbo force. The reason is quite clear (to me) - although maybe not expensive enough to reflect their actual rarity on the real WWII battlefield, they ARE more expensive. So expensive, in fact, that I find it way too dangerous to spend my scarce armor points (even in a 1500 or 2000 points battle) on just these units. Maybe it's just me, but I prefer quantity over quality a lot of times in CM, and the more I play the more I am getting confirmed in this opinion.

Martin

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

"An hour has 60 minutes, each minute in action has a thousand dangers."

- Karl-Heinz Gauch, CO 1st Panzerspähkompanie, 12th SS Panzerdivision

[Aussie Smith]

Note to Pzpkfw 1.

John - in regard to you last statement about the intolerance shown by some people in relation to "Gaminess"

Hear hear - I support your point of view whole-heartedly!!

Craig

[willmontgomery]

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

The reason is quite clear (to me) - although maybe not expensive enough to reflect their actual rarity on the real WWII battlefield, they ARE more expensive. So expensive, in fact, that I find it way too dangerous to spend my scarce armor points (even in a 1500 or 2000 points battle) on just these units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I first started with CM (like a month ago), I wanted to take the PzKpfw VIB for a spin. I went for a QB (attack) with myself as the attacker, gave the defender 300 points, and bought myself an Elite Konigstiger (and an LMG to ride around on the back). The terrain was as flat and featureless as possible. And it took me three tries before I won. It seems to me that in order to win it is necssary to go in harm's way, and under such circumstances it is possible to get killed, even in a Tiger II. If too many of your points are tied up in one vehicle, you're really in trouble if you lose it.