OK, opinions needed!

[Herr Oberst]

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

Two ideas:

2. Increase the impact vehicles have on Global Morale (=GM). Instead of

GM=(Points still alive)/(Initial points), change the formula to

GM= (Points still alive with AFV points counted twice)/( Initial points with AFV points counted twice).

This would discourage any overly offensive use of AFVs.

Sten

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch!!! The "overly offensive" comment should be applied to thin-skinned vehicles ONLY! When playing as the Germans, I fully expect that my armor will be in the lead, supported by infantry. The Puma and other armored cars are supposed to scoot about, reconnoitering enemy positions. When things get hot, they try to back out of trouble, but will often take the hit from the AT gun in the woods (17lbr got two of mine Tuesday night). I should not be penalized for employing them in the role they were designed for.

I suppose I should read on in the thread, but this one prompted a flash response.

[Jarmo]

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

Incremental unit prizes!

If you want to have more units of the same type then you have to pay more with each unit you buy of this type.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it was the norm to have lots of same unit, at least on the

allied side. This would lead to ahistoric force compositions.

[Splinty]

Is it possible to have any unarmed vehicle go into panic mode as soon as it's shot at?

IMO that would make it pretty useless for recon purposes as it would haul a@# as soon as it started taking fire.

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

Nicht Schiessen!!

[This message has been edited by Splinty (edited 09-28-2000).]

[Aggamemnon]

I don't think that the problem is with the prices for these vehicles. In QB's I do tend to take too many M20's, but I think what's needed is a little bit more flexibility in the different categories for Combined Arms. I tend to play as the Americans and it's always difficult in a smaller scenario to get the right amount of support for infantry, so I usually end up getting the M20's as support weapons. I think the prices for vehicles are just fine.

[:USERNAME:]

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

Hello all,

ManheimTanker hit upon something after being inspired by something Lewis had suggested concerning a topic in another thread. We thought it should be kicked around a bit more. So this is a thread to get some opinions...

What we are proposing is a scaled system that, say, would make a currently priced 20 point vehicle have 10 points added (=30) to its price, a 100 point vehicle gets +5 (=105), and a 200+ point vehicle gets no change. Or something like that

B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I pointed out in the "gamey" thread, trucks , jeeps, weasals, etc, have a victory value that is not evident in the game. Namely carting off wounded, food, mail, tissue paper, gas, bringing up mechanics, hauling tons of ammo that you wouldnt want to carry (I would love to hear the moaning from this crowd if they had to carry two 250 round ammo boxes 5 miles..), bringing fresh intel and orders up, etc...

I think having LIVE trucks and jeeps around after a battle near a victory location should be rewarded (Beyond their value). That is the real value of trucks, jeeps, etc. Taking the victory locations needs offensive power but holding it will depend on supply. Having dead trucks should be penalized BEYOND their value and STILL make it deadlier to be in these vehicles plus LOS restrictions. This is a good abstraction. I would limit this truck bonus to a point, that is, only one truck per squad in the victory location gets the bonus. This stops fleets of trucks "taking" the location.

As for jeep recon, maybe BTS can make jeep recon platoons a purchase item. Have to buy 4 jeeps at once and they are more expensive. Yeah they have good morale and you can send them down hells highway. Knock yourself out.. They dont get the "supply" bonus because they are all too drunk to drive after a battle..

Lewis

[aka_tom_w]

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

As for jeep recon, maybe BTS can make jeep recon platoons a purchase item. Have to buy 4 jeeps at once and they are more expensive. Yeah they have good morale and you can send them down hells highway. Knock yourself out.. They dont get the "supply" bonus because they are all too drunk to drive after a battle..

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Lewis is REALLY on to something here.

Jeeps should be cheaper by the dozen, say 4 or 5 or 6 jeeps MUST be purchased as a recon platoon, (or whatever is historically accurtate) and they could be treated in the victory points and the AAR differently than the one odd command jeep that could be purchased and is not intented to get anywhere near the action, and that one command jeep should cost alot to lose and be worth EVEN more if it survives the battle which it should.

But the recon platoon of jeeps must be purchased in bulk (4,5, or 6) BUT would suffer only 1/4 1/5 or 1/6 of the cost of their bulk purchase if lost in combat.

For expample Maybe you should have to buy a recon platoon of lets say 5 jeeps (no MG) it should cost 80 points, then if a jeep is lost it would only cost you 16 points in victory points, BUT you would gain only 16 points in victory points for having it survive the battle.

I REALLY like Lewis's idea of making people purchase a jeep recon platoon as a unit and it should have a new cost.

But those jeep should be treated differently than "command" jeeps at the end of the battle for victory points.

Great Suggestion Lewis!

-tom w

[Olle Petersson]

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

I think the way all the vehciles are costed for purchase, right now is fairly well done.

And I really like the idea that there should be a vehicle survivability bonus.

... the jeeps and trucks that are being abused for gamey recon, should have some more exagerated cost associated with their loss other than just the loss in victory point of their original purchase cost.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not totally convinced about this.

- IMO soft unarmed transports are a little overpriced right now and not worth to "buy" even in realistic proportions, unless they're to be used (sacrificed) in a gamey way.

Dropping the purchase cost a bit (50% ?) would help, especially if aquired together with a towed gun or so.

- Adding a penalty for losing them (+150% ?)will prevent gamey scouting use, which is good.

- Adding a bonus for surviving softskins can (will ?) lead to new gamey tactics. Buy a bunch of trucks/Jeeps and hide them 'til the game is over. This is bad!

As an example let's take a truck. Today it's worth roughly 20pts to buy and to lose in battle. With my suggested change it would be worth 10pts to buy (and survive) a battle, but 30pts to lose.

Note that this does not apply to armed or armoured vehicles, so KiwiJoe's fear of losing light AFVs in flanking attacks would not be a problem.

For vehicles that were historically used for recon, like the Humber, White, Lynx, etc, there shouldn't be a problem if they get some bonus when looking for enemies, this will make them a real asset on the battlefield and thus worth more points to purchase.

As for the suggested Jeep recon platoon, it's the crew that's recon, not the vehicles. The crew should be able to disembark the vehicle when desired, and then reembark at will.

A totally different approach is to differentiate what units are available in QBs respectively scenario editing.

In the scenario editor all units are available, but some might not be allowed in QBs.

Recon vehicles, for example, do not really belong on the front line battlefield but on their own a mile or more ahead of the main force, therefor one could argue to remove them from QBs.

Same goes for MG Jeeps, that belong in the rear areas.

Cheers

Olle

[This message has been edited by Olle Petersson (edited 09-28-2000).]

[engy]

I hate to even bring this up again after it's been beat to death in a different thread, but....

The brief outline of your scale system infers that if you do it across the board, the price for a Sherman will either increase the same amount as or more than the price of a Panther. It seemed that the consensus on the "Overpriced Shermans" thread was certainly *not* that the price of a Sherman should be *increased* relative to a Panther. However, that is exactly what happens with this proposed scale system (even if both prices go up the same amount, the ratio of Sherman:Panther still goes up. Do the math ). While "band-aiding" (note, not "fixing", but "band-aiding" ) one problem it seems like you might be worsening another.

The fix? Hmm....errrrr....wellll...uhhhh....Boss is waiting. Phone is ringing. Coffee is overflowing. Gotta go.....

engy

----

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

"He who makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long."

Napoleon Bonaparte

[JediJobu]

I think that if maybe what you could do is to have a "penalty" for buying a lot of cheap vehicles.

Example:

say a jeep with a .50 is worth 20 points

OK then make it so you can buy 2 or 3 for that price, then make the 4th one be worth 30, then the next one 40, then the next 50 and so on... I think I am getting my point across.

you can also limit the number of cheap vehicles allowed depending on the force that has already been bought. Since most of these cheap vehicles are support vehicles, make a limit on say having 3 jeeps allowed per company of infantry bought or something the like.

Just some thought of a guy at the bottom of the Totem Pole....

[Peter S]

LEAVE IT ALONE! NO POINT ADJUSTMENTS!

Is this gamey 'disposable recon' tactic a widespread problem or has it been limited to a handful of friendly and/or tournament PBEM games? Something tells me that the select few who have encountered this tactic are making a too much fuss over too little smoke. The usage of cheap vehicles for suicidal reconnaisance may have been a rare and unorthodox practice on the Western Front but it did happen (albeit in a less spectacular fashion). But aren't cheap recon units inherently disposable anyway? As to the usage of non-combat vehicles for this gamey tactic; if the fellow wants to waste points on a fast moving target instead more support units then let him, a capable opponent should be able to compensate for this with sound tactics.

By the same notion, aren't those gamers who send a SINGLE Hellcat at top speed deep behind into enemy lines to outflank a wily Panther (or two) also stepping outside the realm of reality? Would an allied tank commander be so bold and/or stupid as to do this SOLO, and WITHOUT other armor or infantry support? A lone, open-topped tank braving the unkown (i.e. hidden, Panzerfaust and grenade equipped infantry) in the hopes that it MAY succeed in nailing a German tank or two? A few brave and/or stupid souls might try it, not most. Sounds suicidal and equally gamey, doesn't it?

While there will ALWAYS be those who exploit the rules to win at all costs (esp. those in ladder and tournament competitions), these people are clearly in the minority. Please do not punish the majority for the sins of the minority.

Finally, allow me to echo the sentiment of others here that American units ought to be a tad cheaper than they are, to reflect America's 'embarassment of material riches'.

[Mr. T]

Implementing the buying of a platoon of jeeps in some way is an interesting idea, as outlined previously.

On another topic, it seems like Shermans could be given the same option. Why not allow 3 or whatever Shermans to be purchased at a lower cost than it would take to get each one separately? Of course Shermans could also be selected in singles to free up money for other tanks, but it might be a better bargain to go for the packaged deal. Perhaps that would further increase their appearance in the game in higher numbers, instead of just being the cheap tank people buy after they spend most of their armor money on the more effective, yet more rare variety of allied tanks.

[This message has been edited by Mr. T (edited 09-28-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

Actually, the situation you described with the Hellcat is exactly how they were used: hard to mimic in the game because they would displace off map rapidly and flank in conjunction with Recon elements. The flat narrow boards we fight on are what cause Hellcats to be so vulnerable since their historic tactic cannot be practiced.

[Philistine]

I agree with Olle Petersson's post above that you should not increase the cost (perhaps even decreasing the cost, but I'm not sold on that ) of jeeps, etc., but instead should add a penalty to the victory points for the destruction of jeeps, trucks, etc.

To me this makes sense in that the primary value of jeeps and trucks is not for their combat power in the context of a CM battle, but rather for use in contexts beyond the scope of CM (e.g. strategic movement, operational recon, etc.)

This way, if you place vehicles in harms way which would not ordinarily be there, the cost you would pay is more the "true" cost to the war effort which is not modeled by CM's "combat-related" point cost.

I don't like increasing the point cost because that penalizes proper use, nor do I like adding a bonus for survivability, as that rewards new gamey behavior (buying jeeps and hiding them).

I'm a little leery of extending this to AC's, because (at least to some extent) they are meant to mix it up. Possibly use it only for some of the more rare (e.g. Puma) or more over-utilized (e.g. T-8) units? Of course, you could rationalize an increase to AC's as their loss will impact the type of recon which is outside of the scope of CM, but if so, I'd suggest less of a penalty than for the "jeep-type" units. (No reasoned basis, kind of a gut-level reaction ).

Just my $.02, expanding on the suggestions of others.

--Philistine

[Slapdragon]

I should also say Hellcats operated in compsite teams of at least two Cats and some Acs but until 1945 rarely hunted with Infantry.

[Giftig]

It seems to me that this issue can be handled at the unit purchase level. The problem here is that sorting out "gamey" intents from "real world" intents cannot be done in game play. Instead of inferring it at the end by penalizing losses, how about simply letting the players do it?

DYO games would be broken into two categories - "free for all", the current system, where if I have enough points I can laager 15 JagdTigers and have a ball; and "Historically Based". The latter would put the player into a screen where they select units BY OOB - a standard infantry company, a platoon of recon vehicles, an armored battalion, etc. Each level of organization would have essentially "slots" to fill or leave empty - an infantry company would consist of 3 combat platoons plus 2 support units per platoon and a command platoon, for example. Any overloading of a formation - attachments, effectively, coming from other formations nearby - would cost double for the first added formation, triple for the second, etc, and that cost would be reflected in loss penalties. This would represent the difficulty in requesting and rounding up units of a certain type and allocating them to one formation preferentially.

The standard cost for a formation would be subtracted from the player's total; a player who is short might end up stripping off some elements to make his number. This would allow "depleted" formations.

This would leave the players with a historically accurate base of units, and the option to add more and more - or remove some - but paying more and more as they move away from what is historically likely. In this way, a player who plays at a company size game, but grabs jeeps instead of infantry, will find himself so encumbered by the increasing cost of the jeeps that it will not be worth it. And that fits with the reaction of a real commander to a request for 25 50 cal jeeps to conduct an assault, I'd imagine.

It also might reflect the effort needed to assign and attach units from other formations as assets in an attack.

Comments? Too hard to implement, maybe?

[Alexander]

Olle, Philistine: great minds think alike.

Where's my Golden Post award?

[Daveman]

I wouldn't change a thing. Discussion amongst potential players beforehand is the best way to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen without a single line of code. If players want to use "gamey" tactics they're still free to do so if that's what they agree to.

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

“Fortune favors the brave" - Terence

[R-Man]

I don’t like the idea. As a player of the Americans, my 50 cal. MGs are now impotent, my crappy tanks cost too much, my bazookas have half the range of shrecks, my infantry come in only one (expensive) flavor, and my light vehicles are going to get slowed down and have reduced spotting. Now, we Americans are good sports, and we don’t whine like the German players do, but come on guys. We’re dyin’ here.

All the Americans have going for them are slightly better artillery, fast vehicles (or, at least, they were fast), decent half-tracks (except for the 50 cal. adjustment), and low cost (lightly armored) tank destroyers. The Germans, on the other hand, have improved Tigers, heavy firepower in light tanks and half-tracks, and more varieties of cheap infantry than you can shake a stick at.

I’m all for realism, but the only way to play-balance this game is through the point system. The Germans were losing over 1,000,000 men a month on the Western front after the D-Day landings, had virtually no source of new manpower, and had to create the “home guard” to deal with it. Why is their infantry so cheap then?

Sorry for the rant, but the American players have sat quietly by while the German juggernaut has been continuously strengthened in this game. I seriously think that the point system needs to be overhauled, and that the German Army of 1944-45 should be brought into line with the very real manufacturing and manpower deficiencies that they experienced IRL.

(BTW, when I say "American" and "German," I mean player sides, not actual nationalities.)

[Randl]

Concerning how to influence the use of various game units particularly in the Recon role;

My Opinion:

1) Do not change purchase points.

2) Do not use a penalty or bonus to control play.

3) Realism changes would be my approach. Particularly these that have been mentioned before;

a. slow the speed in terrain

b. lessen spotting ability while moving

c. have them knocked out or abandoned more easily.

My feeling is... if it could have been done ... then allow it to be done... with the proper and realistic consequences.

Regards,

Randl

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>- Adding a bonus for surviving softskins can (will ?) lead to new gamey tactics. Buy a bunch of trucks/Jeeps and hide them 'til the game is over. This is bad!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I respectfully disagree. Take a closer look at Lewis's idea. He suggest a bonus for getting a supply vehicle to a VL by games end. This bonus represents the ammo, food, WIA evac, etc... needed to strengthen the defense of your newly gained VL. A player that decides to hide his supply vehicles for the entire game gains nothing.

[Hakko Ichiu]

Lewis beat me to the punch on this one, but here's my view:

Fixing the "fast spotting" loophole diminshes the value of the jeep recon rush (JRR). Re-jigging the purchase price of soft-skinned vehicles on top of that would diminish the accuracy of force compositions, IMO. OTOH, penalizing the loss of transport vehicles is a good idea, because it penalizes gamey tactics like the JRR. I don't, however, agree with Lewis's next idea of disproportionately rewarding surviving vehicles because, as others have noted, it leads to new and original gamey tactics.

As for a wholesale re-jigging of vehicle purchase prices, I'll wait until rarity factors come out in CM2, unless BTS can figure out a patch for CMBO.

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

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Juardis]

I've always thought that the value should be based on rarity. So a Sherman M4A1 would be like 75 points, while a Sherman M4A3(76)W+ would be double or triple. The scale should be based on the most common of that type of vehicle. For example, halftracks should be compared to the most common track. Tanks to the most common tank. Tank destroyers to the most common destoyers, etc. That way, you're more likely to seek high value assets instead of high dollar assets and might end up with a more realistic mix of forces. Just a thought that may have been brought up already (to be honest, I haven't read the entire thread).

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

Jeff Abbott

[Philistine]

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

{snip}

I’m all for realism, but the only way to play-balance this game is through the point system. The Germans were losing over 1,000,000 men a month on the Western front after the D-Day landings, had virtually no source of new manpower, and had to create the “home guard” to deal with it. Why is their infantry so cheap then?

Sorry for the rant, but the American players have sat quietly by while the German juggernaut has been continuously strengthened in this game. I seriously think that the point system needs to be overhauled, and that the German Army of 1944-45 should be brought into line with the very real manufacturing and manpower deficiencies that they experienced IRL.

(BTW, when I say "American" and "German," I mean player sides, not actual nationalities.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are misconstruing the purpose of the points. As I understand it, the points aren't historically based on relative (or actual) availability (e.g. the Americans could produce 5 Shermans for every Panther), but instead are completely based upon the combat utility of the unit (e.g. some variaties of the Sherman and Panther are essentially equivalent in combat utility--although for different reasons, and therefore will cost the same).

For gameplay purposes, all QB's are assumed to be local conflicts where the forces levels were equivalent (taking into account combat multiplier effects of being on defense, depending on the type of QB).

They don't represent the general type of action where the Allied forces vastly outnumbered the Germans. Of course, the scenario editor can make these types of battles, but what is the fun of playing the Americans with an overwhelming (albeit historically accurate) advantage in firepower?

On the level of CM, any battle can go one way or the other, which is the whole point of playing a game, particularly an E-Mail game.

Just my $.02

--Philistine

[Havermeyer]

No changes, please.

I defend against enemy intel with MG fields, sniper pickets, and reserve armor. I have a light, fast, larger gunned vehicle (sometimes numerous vehicles, given the size of map) which can respond to a probe and kill it.

Perhaps I haven't been burned by a gamey recon trick yet-- or I've prepared for and stopped it.

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

"Two World Wars and One World Cup, do da, do da!"

--British Hooligan, sung to Camptown Races

[dalem]

Hmm. I'll go with "leave it as it is". The people I play with have no problem with reasonable and historical force balancing, and we feel the points are correct.

Maybe a way to handle this would be to have 'real-world platoon' selections available for all vehicles. That way you could build a 'real' recon troop (or a piece of it) easily.

I don't know - it really seems to me as if some folks need a 'realism on' setting to the game in which historical force limits are set by default somehow. The rest of us can get along fine without that and play as is.

-dale