BTS - - - troop quality pick change

[Dr Dan]

This sounds like a good idea and would allow for some interesting new battle situations. Unfortunately, using the scenario editor means you always know what the other side has.

With all the turnover that occurred in units during the war, wouldn't a mixture of experience levels appear pretty often?

Dan

CM is FUN!

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by barrold713:

P.S. I am glad to have the chance to agree with Chup about something and would enjoy the opportunity to tip a couple pints, although the UK is a bit of a trip to take for a beer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it is well worth it for the beer - alternatively go to Canada (and that coming from a German).

On the topic, I guess it is one of these nice-to-have things, and anything adding more uncertainties/flexibility to QBs is good in my book. At the same time, it definitely is not high-priority to me.

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

Andreas

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:

I'm real sorry, but I absolutely despise it when people say " DO A SEARCH " to everything!

First off, who knows when this topic was last discussed? Maybe things changed from then to now?

Second, I'd like to know the reason for this "No". Since you, Bastables, seem like a person who either has a very good memory or someone who searches for every topic on the board just to make usre if it was discussed before, please do enlighten us to your results. It isn't right that a person should spend half an hour with the terrible search function...

No offense or anything, but really, if you're going to tell people to do a search, tell them the name of the post at least!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know there was a reason your last query on the exact same subject garnered no outbursts of information

[Tiger]

Since my original topic has been largely ignored in favor of a flame-fest, I'll state it again. As a suggestion, allow more freedom in troop quality selection by allowing the use of one experience level lower than is currently available for medium and high types of troops.

It is not a demand, only a suggestion. As far as having complete faith in BTS as to why everything is the way it is now...I guess what people are saying 'nay' to any suggestions or ideas because BTS can do no wrong. I disagree and will continue to offer the occasional suggestion regardless of who thinks it must be offensive to BTS simply because it was asked. Some of us do not worship at the altar of BTS.

As far as a search, I did several. There are currently around 130,000 posts to have to sift through, which often yields long lists of posts that 90% have nothing to do with the search.

regards,

john

[DrAlimantado]

Tiger:

I think I can see where you are coming from. But I must say that I am quite ... indifferent, (maybe a too strong word, but I cannot come up with anything else at the moment), to the idea. While it is always good to have flexibility, I am not sure what the benefits would be. One problem that I can see is that people would for example still use Veteran troops as their main force, but use Green arty spotters because they are relatively cheap. Or they would use Green troops as a cannon fodder screen. Etc, etc. But ... dunno ... but if the change you are proposing would become reality it would not be the end of the world I guess.

But I know one thing; I would be glad if you sent me the next file in our battle.

Mattias

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

Philosophy is a battle against bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. -- L.Wittgenstein

[This message has been edited by DrAlimantado (edited 10-18-2000).]

[CrapGame]

A few people seem to question the benefit of having this option in the game. Several of the reasons against this option seem to focus on the fear of "gamey" issues such as green artillery spotters with crack infantry, etc. Shouldn't this be avoided by selecting your e-mail opponents wisely? You can tell where many people stand on these issues by reading the gamey threads.

My thought is what would it hurt by having it? Just because it is there doesn't mean that you have to use it. It would not hurt anyone, as it would not have to be used. I don't personally use the editor due to time constraints. Most of my CM usage revolves around QB's versus the AI. I would personally love to have this option.

Not being a programmer, I don't know what it would take to activate the option, but I know that when I click on the regular or veteran option, the other options are already there, just greyed out. I think activating it would allow people such as myself to develop tactics utilizing mixed quality troop types and would add to the variety in the game.

With these points in mind, it seems to be a very reasonable thing to ask for.

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

CrapGame

[deanco]

I think it's a great idea myself because it would add a bit more variety in the QB possibilities. But the one issue no one has addressed yet (and I am blown away that it hasn't) is: is it realistic? Did troop mixes of this sort actually happen in WWII? I admit I am incapable of answering this question, but I am amazed no one as jumped in quoting books and statistics right away. Hey folks, realism is your god. (Not mine, thanks, I just like a good video game, period.) Y'all bow and pray to realism and historical accuracy every day on this board. IMHO this obsession is this board's "blind spot" but that's beside the point. The short answer is, if it was realistic, BTS would have put it in from the start because realism is their god too. Since it's not there it must not be realistic. Just my 2 cents.

DeanCo--

[Guest barrold713]

I don't think that giving weight to Steve and Charles, (et all) in the area of what was included and what was left out is "worshiping at the BTS alter", but rather giving them the appreciation for their past and current efforts at making CM as good as it is.

The amount and speed of modifications so easily added by the extremely talented group of people in here has increased the value of what was already an excellent game value.

As a long time gamer, I treasure what I have been provided so far.

Are there valid arguments for tweaks that would improve the game? Of course, and many people have provided great ideas that I personally would like to see. My position is that BTS has been open to these discussions and provided rationale for making or not making the changes. Everyone may not agree with them, but then again they are not the ones with their name on the product and they are not going to lose money if CM had failed.

It just gives me the feel of someone going to a restaurant that has advertised a seven course gourmet meal and after enjoying the best food they were ever consumed, then complaining that the experience is lessened by color of the plates it was served on. Moreover, some of the threads I have seen (and I am not pointing to Tiger specifically here because he has genuinely been a positive contributer) are akin to demanding that the chinaware be switched in mid-meal.

BTW to Germanboy, it was not the quality of the beer that would be looked for, but the quality of the company in which it was consumed.

BDH

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

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"

- Ben Franklin

[Wilhammer]

I see one problem with this, and it is gamey/quasi-historical - cannon fodder.

I would like to buy a company of green for dirt cheap to run out as a skirmishing screen to locate the enemy and then take my veterans to eliminate the critical positions.

You think mad jeep rushes are a problem? Imagine a cloud of green volksgrenadiers backed up by veteran SS in every QB.

Worse, imagine clouds of green Hotchkiss tanks backed up by veteran Tigers.

It would make CM look like a simulation of Napoleonic warfare.

Now, of cource, if you consider the Commisar concept, this is a valid tactic with the Russians.

[This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-18-2000).]

[CrapGame]

Germanboy said:

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

On the topic, I guess it is one of these nice-to-have things, and anything adding more uncertainties/flexibility to QBs is good in my book. At the same time, it definitely is not high-priority to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe Andreas sums it up in a nutshell. Nobody who mentioned that they like this option are clamoring about using "gamey" tactics.

Wilhammer, you said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I see one problem with this, and it is gamey/quasi-historical - cannon fodder.

I would like to buy a company of green for dirt cheap to run out as a skirmishing screen to locate the enemy and then take my veterans to eliminate the critical positions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is not an issue if you have picked your PBEM partner wisely. You can tell much about how a person will play by reading their responses in the various "gamey" threads. Additionally, if you can do it, than so can your opponent.

You also said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You think mad jeep rushes are a problem? Imagine a cloud of green volksgrenadiers backed up by veteran SS in every QB.

Worse, imagine clouds of green Hotchkiss tanks backed up by veteran Tigers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, I could imagine this cloud of green volksgrenadiers being decimated by a hail of artillery and routing off the map without firing a shot. Green hotchkiss tanks die faster than the Veteran ones, (to quote another member of the forum), which already die like the redshirts on Star Trek. My question here is (and this is not hypothetical)- How much cheaper is a Green platoon of Volksgrenadiers than a Regular platoon? I am at work, and don't have the answer at my disposal. For arguments sake, let's postulate the difference at roughly 30 points between the two units. That's enough of a difference to buy what, one HMG-42? So in a 1000 point battle where you have three +/- platoons of infantry plus a few AFV's & support units, with this new option you have chosen three platoons of green infantry for the benefit of an extra 3 HMG's. That number of points wouldn't even buy you an additional platoon of infantry. If this is a reasonable estimation, which I believe it is, then I'd like to be the opponent facing the green platoons in that scenario.

My point is that having this option available does not suddenly make a player use "gamey" tactics. "Gamey" players already use and will continue to use "gamey" tactics whether or not this option is made available.

I find it clear that the benefit of increased variety in qb's outweighs any risk of abusive and "gamey" play in the game.

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

CrapGame

[This message has been edited by CrapGame (edited 10-18-2000).]

[Col Deadmarsh]

I think there have been some good arguments on this thread after the flaming stopped. I can see how some people might be worried that if we were presented with an option to use green troops with vets that someone would use the greens to scout and have the vets hold the vl's.

Then someone else argued that if you send greens out for recon duty, they may not be able to always do the job. They might panic at the thought of advancing while being spotted by an enemy team and head straight back to the rear while a reg or vet squad might continue to advance and look for more signs of the enemy until they are told to stop and take cover.

Are the 30 points or so you save by buying green troops worth it when you assign them a task like recon duty that is significantly harder than covering your flank? Has anyone tried this technique on a homemade scenario? I'd love to know how these greens and conscripts react when first shot at.

I think what people are really worried about here is their armor being spotted by these cheap teams running from one side of the map to another. With a jeep, you might actually make it across and spot a few things but will this technique really work with infantry? Anyone with half a brain would have infantry out in front of their armor and so when this gamey tactic is used, the greens will be met by an opposing squad or two of infantry with arty or mortar fire included. My guess is they won't last long at all and will never get to see the armor hiding in the back.

Opinions?

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by barrold713:

BTW to Germanboy, it was not the quality of the beer that would be looked for, but the quality of the company in which it was consumed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In which case I strongly recommend avoiding London and going to Canada instead... You may meet me and Kumbaya here... Or the red-haired Goatee...

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

Andreas

[Guest Germanboy]

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

I find it clear that the benefit of increased variety in qb's outweighs any risk of abusive and "gamey" play in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said CrapGame - as someone who is very wary about PBEMing people I don't know, I think that the gameyness issue is really not much of a problem for me. I can see where you are coming from Wilhammer, it just would not matter to me.

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

Andreas

[Wilhammer]

Just playing the devil's advocate guys.

As you all have well stated, this may not be a consideration.

[Tiger]

The cost of a green volksgrenadier rifle platoon is 78. A regular volksgrenadier rifle platoon costs 99. That's 21 points saved. Not even enough to buy a regular heavy MG42 which costs 28.

One aspect which would certainly be improved is being able to use up odd points left over during force selection, for both sides.

There's certainly no huge advantage to being able to purchase one level of troops lower in quality than you can now. Quite the reverse actually. It does however allow more variety in QBs and would finally give the "random" selection under troop quality a reason to use.

I think the "paper-tiger" of the green, gamey horde is just that. Intrestingly, no one has worried about the gamey tactics of using regular troops in a high-quality battle (which allows only vets, crack & elite right now). Look out! here comes that gamey "regular" horde of troops....

-john

[Chupacabra]

My fundamental objection is still that this is an option which is already available via the scenario editor.

Is it a perfect compromise? No.

Is it in the game now? Yes.

In the abstract, I have nothing against the idea. If it was something which was planned for CM2, I would have no objections. Again, this could be the quickest code change in the history of computer games, but my feeling is still that if BTS takes the time to model every small, quick change which people want, we'll be waiting for CM2 for quite a while. And to me, that's the meat of the series. That's what I'm really looking forward to.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Tiger]

by this reasoning Chup, BTS never should have released patches 1.01-1.05 nor be working on TCI/IP.

I think your objection based on "well it's already in the scenario editor" has been well argued against already. Maybe you only play scenarios.

You certainly didn't go ballistic on kking199's suggestion on the scenario briefings. hello?

-john

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 10-18-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

There's a difference between fixing the game and adding things to it. I didn't say anything about the briefing/debriefing thing because it's in the hands of the scenario designers.

I repeat again.

I have no strong objection to this proposal in the abstract, nor to the way in which it was originally presented. My original strong reaction was against the "I want this now" mentality, which I explained. My fundamental objection I've pointed out.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[CrapGame]

Tiger,

Only 21 points. Thanks for the information. I must agree with your Paper-Tiger argument. I didn't even think about the fact that nobody argues about the numerical superiority of Regular troops versus Veteran or Crack, etc.

Chup,

You're point is well made. My argument for enabling it in the qb screen is twofold: First, this would introduce a kind of bias on my part, as no matter how much I can say I wouldn't, there would be some form of bias introduced vis-a-vis which units got to be green, which regular, etc. I feel this would tilt the battle somewhat, as I could ensure the security platoon was conscript, and the Airborne platoon was elite, or make the Puppchen green so I can have the Elite Tiger.

Second (and I am speculating here, as I don't know how to use the editor), but if you open a battle in the editor, does it show you the selected forces for both sides? Not only would this spoil the surprise of not knowing what you were going to be facing, but wouldn't this also introduce the "selection bias" on the player's part for what AI forces would be chosen to be green, veteran, etc.? (i.e. I'll give the AI an elite Hotchkiss and a conscript Panther, etc.)

I also am looking forward to CM2 (and wouldn't want to delay it), but on the possibility that this is fairly simple to implement, it would be a very welcome addition to the upcoming TCP/IP patch.

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

CrapGame

[Tiger]

Things have been added to in the patches, things that were suggested on this forum. The patches have not been all bug fixes. Remember the turrent rotation thingy last patch? Now you're reiterating you're against the suggestion because someone said they'd like to see it in the next patch. My belief is that you've got a problem with one of the people who posted a reply to my suggestion and are objecting only insomuch as to carry on some sort of vendetta. In any case, it is difficult to support your objections when you base them on abstracts.

I still make the suggestion of allowing 1 less level of unit experience when choosing forces in a QB; green available to "medium" quality troops, regular available to "high" quality troops when using the QB screen. I think it's a neat idea. If BTS says definitely no I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it

-john

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 10-18-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

Tiger -

Yes, I do have a problem with someone who replied to your thread. My initial strong reaction, as I've said several times, was to his post, not to yours. As far as vendettas go, I'm not interested. I've said my piece on that, as far as I'm concerned.

My fundamental objection, as I've pointed out again, is that this is not a balance issue, it is not a fix to the game engine as was the turret rotation issue, it is an addition to the game engine. I applaud BTS' commitment to maintaining the game engine and providing fixes where applicable, but it is my preference, purely personal, admittedly selfish, that the time they could spend adding new features to CM1 go instead towards CM2.

Re: the scenario editor. Again, it's not a perfect compromise, but if you're playing with someone you trust, I think it requires no more trust to ask that they not look at your force selection than to ask that they not use green troops as cannon fodder.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Col Deadmarsh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Intrestingly, no one has worried about the gamey tactics of using regular troops in a high-quality battle (which allows only vets, crack & elite right now). Look out! here comes that gamey "regular" horde of troops....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well put Tiger. Just as the vet troops would be used for the lesser duties in a high-quality battle, what would be the difference in having green troops to choose from with regs and vets? I'd really like to see at least 3 choices per option:

Low--Conscripts, Green, Regs

Med--Green, Regs, Vets

High--Vets, Crack, Elite

I hope this post doesn't sound "Veruca Saltish" but I really think that it would make this game even better than it already is. Using the scenario editor is just not a viable alternative because all the randomness is taken out of the game in exchange for what we gain.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Tiger]

One could argue that it is a fix to the game as the random troop quality selector on the QB screen is basically useless as is.

Just as one can argue whether or not the turrent rotation in last patch was a fix or a suggestion for something to be done differently that was already in the game.

Or the frontal turrent armor on a tank which was changed due to a suggestion in a post from this forum.

What about tci/ip? The game has multiplayer already available via pbem. Why waste time on tci/ip when you can already play by e-mail? Heck they could have already been started on CM2 long ago

Chup, I see what you're saying but I disagree.

xxoo

-john

ps~ Intresting Deadmarsh. Should low quality should remain conscript-green, medium quality add green, high quality add regular? Adding one less experience troop quality gives incentive to play with lesser forces when available rather than be shackled to a narrow range. Giving regular troops to low quality removes the point of having low quality. Perhaps "crack" was somewhat redundant in regards to elite troops in allowing high quality 3 picks while low and medium quality only get two picks? Adding regular to high quality would give a player 4 picks in that category, which means that a player with high quality picks has more to think about when he makes his selections. You could imply that this makes choosing your elite/crack units much more of a challenge. A unit with medium quality picks would have 3 choices of troop quality (green, regular, vet). A person with low quality selections would have only 2 picks (conscript, green). This keeps low-quality where it should be but opens up the medium to high selections, which is where most people play anyways. Also adds a chance for the lesser quality troops to come into play more often (regular & green).

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 10-18-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

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

One could argue that it is a fix to the game as the random troop quality selector on the QB screen is basically useless as is.

Just as one can argue whether or not the turrent rotation in last patch was a fix or a suggestion for something to be done differently that was already in the game.

Or the frontal turrent armor on a tank which was changed due to a suggestion in a post from this forum.

-john<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, one could argue that those were changes rather than fixes, but I think they were fixes

I don't find the random unit function useless at all, in fact I think it'd be less useless if you ask for random troop quality, but can still choose 3 of the 6 choices in any given situation. I'd rather have a feeling of foreboding when I select random troop quality, wondering if I'm going to wind up with a horde of conscripts or a platoon of elites.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Col Deadmarsh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ps~ Intresting Deadmarsh. Should low quality should remain conscript-green, medium quality add green, high quality add regular? Adding one less experience troop quality gives incentive to play with lesser forces when available rather than be shackled to a narrow range. Giving regular troops to low quality removes the point of having low quality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I hear what you're saying. Maybe we have slighty different reasons for wanting this change. For me, I want a broader selection of quality no matter what level I'm playing--be it Low, Med, or High.

Some could argue that Regs would not belong to a low troop quality and they might be right. I only suggested this because it would provide 3 different levels of experience no matter what general level of experience you decide on.

As for the people who worry that this might introduce another gamey tactic: If this selection was put into play, two opponents could always decide on whether they want to use med quality with greens, regs, and vets or just buy regs and vets only--just as two people would decide whether or not to use Fionn's 75 rule or not.

(With me constantly posting to this thread, I'll be lucky to get any work done today.)

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

Youth is wasted on the young.