OK, opinions needed!

[Mark IV]

The only way I could support buying jeep recon units in platoons, is if the TO&E of the time actually made widespread use of such a thing. Which I doubt. What about Kubelwagens? Trucks? HTs?

I am really against the game mechanics being modified to enforce someone else's notion of correct human-player behavior. Guns and explosives are supposed to do that.

If the vehicles and weapons are modeled correctly, a player may use or misuse them at will, just like in RL. Good use works, bad use explodes and burns. Leave it alone!

[Hemo2]

Please leave the point values as they are.

Since this isn't real life, there will always be units used as disposable recon or in manners they weren't intended. I don't believe increasing the point values for low end vehicles will stop this use. I think this is more of an AI issue than a point value issue.

You could increase the 'penalty' for loosing such vehicles, but what if the vehicles are used in an 'appropriate' manner and are lost anyway? You then increase the penalty for someone who uses them in an appropriate manner.

You could increase the 'bonus' for having vehicles survive the battle, but then won't that create an environment where someone could withhold some non-combat vehicles from battle to 'improve' their battle outcome?

Maybe units that are hidden or in ambush mode could be made to not open fire as quickly which in turn would reduce how soon they are spotted by the enemy. But even with this there may be situations when you want your troops to open fire sooner on the advancing enemy to prevent him from getting to close.

The best thing I can think of right now is to perhaps have vehicles with no offensive capabilities be seen by the enemy as less of a threat and not be fired upon as quickly, thus reducing how soon or easy your troops reveal their location by opening fire and get spotted. But I think this should only be appropriate for "hidden" or "ambush" troops and not normal troops sticking their heads up looking around. Of course the vehicle would need to be 'identified' by your troops as having no weapon. But if it's identified as a transport with troops embarked, then it should be dealt with as a threat. But something like a jeep with no gun or empty truck, etc. could be treated in this manner.

This is a rather difficult issue and think it is great that BTS would give special attention to it, but no matter what is implemented, there will be additional side effects as a result that may punish appropriate use or different gamey tactics developed to get around it. Not to mention how or if the changes can effectively be programmed into the AI.

Thus, leave the points as they are and tread softly before making other changes.

[aka_tom_w]

I would like to counter R-Man, and yes I prefer to play the Allies as well, and yes usually we are out gunned, by better tanks.

Just an opinion here but all the examples you have mentioned "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 think all these things you mention are inline with the reality of the situation at the time. The Allies had more equipment and it may not have been as good. The Germans had 4 years of war making experience and better equipment and very good tanks ( with GREAT optics )

So I'm not sure were the problem is.

Is the problem in the point system that does not make the Allied units cheap enough? Perhaps, if you model the Allied units with cheaper prices then the German units should be modeled with tougher armour and main weapons that penetrate more armour, hit more accurately at long range and are generally superior to the Allies.

But all of this is in an effort to SIMULATE the reallity fo combat in the ETO after D-Day and it WORKS very well now the way it is.

I think that the changes BTS has made to the Tiger Mantle and the .50 cal MG have been COMPLETELY in line with the way both these things actaully were in historical reality and the tweaks have been well done and welcomed by those interested in historical accuracy and detail.

I think the U.S. did NOT have the cake-walk to Berlin after D-Day that some here may have believed. I think it was a long hard fight all the way and the Germans fought bravely and perhaps at times fanatically, but were simply in the end, out numbered by more men and more equpiment, usually of inferior skill and manufacture and this game should model that reality.

-tom w

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

[kollos]

Hey folks,

Just my 2 cents.

Leave the costs.

[Slapdragon]

Ok -- now I am in the position of arguing with myself.

The Allied 3rd Army in the Mossele from September to December (my own little pet research area) lost 248 medium tanks in front line action but lost 888 trucks, halftracks, and jeeps in the front lines (from Daily casualty report #32 to #124 3rd Army). Meaning to me someone was using the "Jeeps, trucks, and halftracks" near the front lines.

During the same period the Germans lost 10 times as many medium tanks as the US (3/4 by air attack and given a toe count -- if you can't kick the wreck it was not recorded) but the same number of "other vehicles".

Meaning to me that the US did indeed "expend" the light vehicles.

I also think the allies are already over balanced tank for tank and infantry for infantry in terms of how much they cost versus how much they do, so there has to be some way to test these changes.

[kunzler]

I don't know that I want to see the price of light vehicles increased, as I think it would one-sidedly affect the U.S. forces, and I tend to agree with the camp that believes the U.S. forces to be more costly for their effectiveness than the German forces (slightly).

How about just taking the .50 Jeep out of the quick battle selection menu? I would leave it in the scenario editor, but take out of the quick battles. IMO, the regular jeep makes a more realistic recon unit, as it is able to dash a scout such as a sharpshooter out to a forward position and then rush to cover. This is a more acceptable recon technique to me.

Another solution might be to quickly erode the morale of thin-skinned vehicles when they get out of sight of their buddies. Thus, when a jeep or light armored car gets too far ahead of the bulk of a player's force and starts taking fire, there would be a high chance of it turning tail and running.

A further fix might be to use the rarity factor as discussed by Steve in the Cherry Picking thread (preferably in the manner suggested by yours truly and use a high rarity factor for vehicles that have a tendency to be abused, whether truly rare or not. As the rarity factors can be toggled on and off, you would not need it for trusted opponents and the rarity of vehicles would not affect normal pricing.

BTW BT, can we expect to see rarity pricing in a patch before the release of CM2?

[Bruno Weiss]

While it is probably very beneficial to BTS to know what we all think, and indeed a good many suggestions and ideas can be gathered this way through opinions, the thread is reminding me why things don't work too well at my job. On account of everytime we go to do something, we form a committee and the end result is nothing ever gets done through a committee. Now, it might be that at the end of this trail, BTS should take a survey vote on this issue, because at this point I see some excellent points being raised on both sides, or all sides of this issue. Maybe a quick voting poll, announced ahead of time, open for a short period (day or two), and we vote it up or down as to the specific issue at hand. Yes, change the truck/jeep purchase points, or no do not change the purchase points. As for all of the other comments, ideas and suggestions. They are food for thought for BTS, either to consider for future changes in CM, or things to implement in CM2.

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

"Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben"

Moto-(3./JG11 "Graf")

Bruno "Stachel" Weiss

[R-Man]

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

I would like to counter R-Man, and yes I prefer to play the Allies as well, and yes usually we are out gunned, by better tanks.

I think all these things you mention are inline with the reality of the situation at the time. The Allies had more equipment and it may not have been as good. The Germans had 4 years of war making experience and better equipment and very good tanks ( with GREAT optics )

So I'm not sure were the problem is.

Is the problem in the point system that does not make the Allied units cheap enough?

-tom w

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom,

Thank you for the calm, rational and flame-free response to my rant. I am in favor of any modification to the game that increases realism and FOW. However, there are some play-balance issues that can only be addressed through the points system. In the interest of play balance, Shermans should be cheaper (or Tigers/Panthers more expensive), German infantry more expensive, and the potency of the 50 cal. (while not a points issue) should be restored to its original lethality, or at least bumped up a notch.

The liberation of France and Belgium after D-Day (August through November 1944), while not a cakewalk, was certainly far less costly than the Allies had ever imagined. (The phrase “wildest dreams” comes to mind.) I do not have access to my books at the moment, but in “Defeat in the West,” the author cites incredible German prisoner and casualty counts in excess of 1 mil. men per month on the Western Front alone. The Germans could not replenish these losses. Thus, in an argument akin to armor rarity, I suggest that the cost of German infantry be increased.

The points system now, as I understand it, is devoid of any factors related to rarity, manufacturing, supply, etc., and is only concerned with quality ranking factors. It is fair in its own way, but also unrealistic. The Puma is a perfect example of this imperfection.

This thread was started with light vehicles and AFV point costs in mind, but hey, while we’re tinkering, let’s look at the bigger picture.

Rick

[cris]

my view is to leave things basically as they are, in any points system there is always the opportunity for something to come out on top. I do however agree with some of the postings that a few vehicles could be balanced on an individual basis (i play brits and think the mmg carrier is a bit cheap).

slightly off thread (sorry) but my biggest problem with points based games is the armour escalation issue. amers take 76 and 90 armed tanks, germans panthers and tigers brits 17 pdrs. mechanised games get away from this but do not allow for tanks. an option limiting the max unit cost (130?) restricting games to Pz4s v sherman 75s. would be wonderful.

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

cris

[Smoker1]

I think the unit costs should be left alone. Players can set up house rules to determine which units can or cannot be purchased and in what quantities a given unit can be purchased.

Right now the point cost reflects the combat abilities of the unit only. This is as it should be because we are only simulating one very short battle. The potential for gameyness will always be apparent no matter what is done with unit cost. Gamey tactics can only be dealt with by agreed upon rules. Unfortunately, these rules are often going to be vague and open to interpretation which will sometimes provoke the charge of "gamey play" from an opponent who is having a rough game and can't take it gracefully.

If anything is done to the points I would like to see the Allies given a break on the cost of Shermans.

Smoker out.

[Oompa-Loompa]

My head is swimming with all of the suggestions.

My $.02

1) Keep the purchase cost and victory points the same. Incremental purchase costs can lead to ahistorical results (as noted above). And increased victory points for jeeps, trucks, etc. may, in rare cases, lead to people buying those units and keeping them in the rear SOLEY for a vistory point bonus. Simply stated, people will always find away around the system.

Now I nothing of coding and advanced algorithyms, nor do I know if this has been discussed before, but what is your collective opinion of the following sugestion(s).

1) Keep/enact the off road rules.

2) Make the units themselves less likely to perform well and endure fire while out of contact.

Have an INCREASED specific unit morale penality (for the Jeep, truck etc.) if a transport "loses contact" with any friendly unit. "Oh,oh..I'm all alone". Increase the liklihood that the units themselves want to head home.

So, you can order them over on the other side, but ON THEIR OWN they are significantly more likley to break, much more likely to retun to their own lines, and take longer to get back into acceptable morale status.

If a person REALLY wanted to do a "gamey" recon they could load an HQ unit in a transport of some kind and send that over. Akin to having an officer standing over your shoulder (i.e. "G-damm-it-all, soldier I told you to drive over that hill, I want to get a look at the defenses". Let "gamey" recon-folk put a tansport AND HQ unit at risk of getting shot up. Increase the risks and lower the liklihood that the techniques is used.

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

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

Dwight D. Eisenhower

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

While it is probably very beneficial to BTS to know what we all think, and indeed a good many suggestions and ideas can be gathered this way through opinions, the thread is reminding me why things don't work too well at my job. .....

Maybe a quick voting poll, announced ahead of time, open for a short period (day or two), and we vote it up or down as to the specific issue at hand.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would prefer no voting and happily accept the completely autocratic and dicatorial leadership and decison making of Steve and Charles when it comes to serious and important game design decisions such as this one which could potentailly seriously effect play balance.

I think Steve has been VERY generous to ask us what we think if his ideas for fixing this problem.

It has been said that "Decisions are made by those who show up"

but I'm more than happy to aksed for my opinion on this matter and then told by Steve and Charles how it is going to be.

They have shown great leadership and have made some very good decisions in the past.

-tom w

[Oompa-Loompa]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm more than happy to aksed for my opinion on this matter and then told by Steve and Charles how it is going to be.

They have shown great leadership and have made some very good decisions in the past.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here, here! Harumph, harumph!!

(i.e. in hearty agreement with above sentiment)

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

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

Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Cyrano]

Please number me among those in favor of the status quo. Having read through most of the "fixes", some of which are remarkably ingenious, I still think they tend far too much towards forcing a convention unnecessarily on players. I return to a point I made elsewhere concerning "house rules" and add a note regarding the "Is X gamey" postings on this forum. People are smart enough to decide what they can tolerate in a game/opponent and let that opinion be known. Put another way, send those jeeps at me every blinking time and I will opt not to play against you. Although, let this be said, I would certainly find it a nifty challenge to stop them...once or twice...

And, as an aside, kudos to BTS for communicating with your players in this way. One among a million reasons this company is a standard bearer for a better way of doing business.

Regards,

Cyrano

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

"Watching others make friends, as a dog makes friends. I mark the manner of these canine courtesies and say, 'Thank God, here comes another enemy'" -- Rostand

[Tanaka]

Hi,

Leave the points as they are.

Because:

1)Your suggestion could rise more problems then solutions

2)Loking at these postes,it seems there is no consensus in this sobject.

João

[Bombardier]

A point system increase seems a bit excessive.

If your intent is to stop “ gamey ” uses of vehicles, then change the properties of those units which are be exploited/ abused.

To increase cost would punish people who never used those vehicles in such a manner.

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

[Ari Maenpaa]

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

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.

Regards,

Randl

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely agree with Randl in this issue. Thank You Steve for asking.

Ari

[Wilhammer]

Relative costs.

1. I'd say Allied, esp American stuff is too expensive, considering that the production of Sherman tanks in one year exceeded all German AFV production for the entire war.

Not to mention, we had trucks and cars enough for each man in the field to have one.

2. German artillery is too effective, and its cost is similar to American. Germans surveyed everything and took care of all plot variables as needed. The Americans used a "Database" like approach in which they did all the variables before hand, set up banks of plot tapes, and dragged out the right tape based on a set of conditional variables already stored in the database. Germans depended on wire, and its complicated system relied on highly trained personnel. The American had to know how to read a map, select the right tape, and know the distance and angle to the coordinates. They used radios. This Artillery combat net allowed the infamous "TOT" barrage, wherein multitudes of batteries delivered the barrage on Time on Target at the same time, without spotting rounds.

Translation, German artillery was relatively inflexible and took about 15-20 minutes to deliver. American artillery could drop a barrage in 2-3 minutes, and anyone with a radio could possibly do it from NCOs up. The artillery game system, as is common with nearly all WW2 wargames, is based on the German system. This design decision slights the American cause. With the current system, upping the delivery time for German artillery should be done.

3. Jeeps were used for recon, but typically the jeep was stopped and the crew got out, often dismounting the MG if need be. The .50 MG Jeep would be just about right if the crew could get out.

4. Germans infantry have a tremendous amount of firepower. Now, the TO&E may indicate they had it, but I just completed an Excel Infantry Cost Analysis spreadsheet, and the German Infantry, on a Firepower/Cost asessment are on the order of 0.285 points per unit of Firepower while Americans average 0.311 points per unit of Firepower, a 9.12% premium for American Squads, on average. Given that the Americans had a nearly endless pool of ammunition, spare parts and replacements, I would expect it should be the opposite.

BTW, if anyone wants to see my "Combat Mission Unit Cost Analysis", drop me a line at billwood@triad.rr.com.

When it is done, I will see if MadMatt will post it for all to use.

My comments, for now.

If you want a more realistic balance of costing, I highly suggest the American players get a 10-20% handicap in purchasing.

BTW, CM is the best wargame I ever played.

It is more and more attractive to me each day. It occuppies my thoughts and much time.

Gotta love it.

Bill

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Now, I'm not opposed to this tweaking suggestion, however having said that I must add that I share the concern voiced by others that such a purchase point increase would inadvertantly penalize those who wish to properly use the transport qualities of these units. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How so? These transport units are to carry the units to battle, not through the battle. You can use the units to increase you manuverability and flexability but you should also pay a price when these manuvers fail.

It seems to me that some want the benifits of certain units but wish to take none of the risks that using them would incur...

Cav

[Guest Turret]

The current system is fine for the general situation.

I think true value depend on the conditions of the battle. It even depends on the other player. An AT gun value depends on the tank threat. In a wooded very hilly marshy map with no roads on muddy rainy foggy night a King Tiger would be nothing compared to its is worth on a daylight open plain. Points, as it is, seem based on the general condition. It is up to the player of the QB to decide what the bargains are and what are the lemons.

Scenario designers should have the sense to ignore the point system for the above reasons.

My $0.02

[Dittohead]

Yo slappy

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Allied 3rd Army in the Mossele from September to December (my own little pet research area) lost 248 medium tanks in front line action but lost 888 trucks, halftracks, and jeeps in the front lines (from Daily casualty report #32 to #124 3rd Army). Meaning to me someone was using the "Jeeps, trucks, and halftracks" near the front lines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeeps, halftracks and trucks were used daily to carry supplies, wounded, replacements etc.. to front line troops. They were often lost due to German Artillery, accidents, mines etc...

Your numbers due not prove that they were used in reckless recon missions.

Tony

[CavScout]

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

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).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. If it were based on availability we likely have less gung-ho German players.

[CavScout]

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

I think all these things you mention are inline with the reality of the situation at the time. The Allies had more equipment and it may not have been as good. The Germans had 4 years of war making experience and better equipment and very good tanks ( with GREAT optics )

So I'm not sure were the problem is.

Is the problem in the point system that does not make the Allied units cheap enough? Perhaps, if you model the Allied units with cheaper prices then the German units should be modeled with tougher armour and main weapons that penetrate more armour, hit more accurately at long range and are generally superior to the Allies.

But all of this is in an effort to SIMULATE the reallity fo combat in the ETO after D-Day and it WORKS very well now the way it is.

I think that the changes BTS has made to the Tiger Mantle and the .50 cal MG have been COMPLETELY in line with the way both these things actaully were in historical reality and the tweaks have been well done and welcomed by those interested in historical accuracy and detail.

(SNIP)

I think it was a long hard fight all the way and the Germans fought bravely and perhaps at times fanatically, but were simply in the end, out numbered by more men and more equpiment, usually of inferior skill and manufacture and this game should model that reality.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree pretty much but I do think the US player should have the historic advantage of "more gear". It seems everyone wants, I know not "everyone", to the Germans as long as they don't have to face the historic material advantage.

Cav

[CavScout]

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

Ok -- now I am in the position of arguing with myself.

The Allied 3rd Army in the Mossele from September to December (my own little pet research area) lost 248 medium tanks in front line action but lost 888 trucks, halftracks, and jeeps in the front lines (from Daily casualty report #32 to #124 3rd Army). Meaning to me someone was using the "Jeeps, trucks, and halftracks" near the front lines.

During the same period the Germans lost 10 times as many medium tanks as the US (3/4 by air attack and given a toe count -- if you can't kick the wreck it was not recorded) but the same number of "other vehicles".

Meaning to me that the US did indeed "expend" the light vehicles.

I also think the allies are already over balanced tank for tank and infantry for infantry in terms of how much they cost versus how much they do, so there has to be some way to test these changes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hard to judge these numbers as the Germans had no where near the ratio of "other" vehicles to tanks. Also, people forget that the majority of a divison's strength is non-combat personel or that an HHC is likely to outnumber the line companies in personel and vehicles.

Cav

[Keith]

Leave the point system as is. If you play against someone who uses "gamey" tactics, simply don't play them again. We are making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

BTW jeeps are in the TOE for U.S. recon troops and were used in the front lines. Period. As long as someone doesn't send the jeeps blindly careening down the road into my lines, I don't give a damn how they use them.