OK, opinions needed!

[:USERNAME:]

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

Ok, you say "only make jeeps and a few others subject to this". The whole point of buying cheap, easily killed vehicles in the first place is that they are largely disposable. If you make easily killed vehicles have a severe penalty for dying, people will rightly decide that they are not worth the trouble and will stop buying them. You might as well just take them out of the game.

3. Make survived vehicles worth more VPs

This one has all sorts of gamey implecations. People can buy large numbers of cheap vehicles and hide them from combat. If you require the vehicles to be on VLs to count people will hide them until the last few turns and then rush them up. Gamey.

When you start basing cost upon asumptions about the way in which a player intends to use it you are entering a grey area and will cause more problems than you solve.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW

I am just stunned by all the intelligent responses in this thread.

I think I made a point that the bonus is dependant on the fact that the vehicle live, that the vehicle be in the victory location and that there is a cutoff to the amount of vehicles that would benefit from this. Is reading covered in schools anymore?

I like the scaled approach where each additional vehicle costs more..That is, the more you buy the more it costs. Too many pumas running around for me.

I am glad that ramming and running over arent modeled. It would be hell getting people to give that up. Buy a bunch of deuce and a halfs and ram tanks for christs sake...

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

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

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Cav Scout:

I agree that the number do not prove reckless use, but the numbers are kept apart from the "casualties to division train, Army support, and noncombat casualties" but many could well have been due to artillery. There is even a drunk driving column on these reports. Box 49 on the casualty reports is "Combat Battlaion Losses: Vehicles".

[Trooper]

Can't really say I see much to count against the concept of using jeeps as cheap, fast recon. They can be killed fast by cheap units!

NTM

[USGrant]

Well, today I asked George Patton how he spent his points in his last QB (you can do that up here). He replied "What is points and what is a QB?"

My point is that points have nothing to do with "realism" but rather are a GAMEY balancing mechanism, primarily for QBs. The various physical models in the game to a large extent represent realism. IMHO, discussions of rarity, material availability, etc. are not really relevant to battles on the scale of CM.

I vote for the following:

1. Continue to tweak the physical models as flaws are discovered (as Steve and Charles have indicated that they will do with wheeled vehicles spotting at fast speed off-road).

and

2. Modify the mysterious-point-value-equation-that-only-Steve-and-Charles-know by adding a unit specific factor (some might call it G for gaminess adjustment, others might prefer PB for play-balance adjustment)to account for all of the factors not in THE EQUATION. G or P would be assigned at the discretion of the designers, and would probably be 0 for most units and could even be negative.

So:

Points = (THE EQUATION) + PB

This would allow BTS the discretion to, after digesting the various AARs, add 5 or 10 points to MG Jeeps (if necessary after the physics tweaks), and subtract 10 or 20 points from Shermans.

I think this would work better than tweaking the whole scale because I also think compressing the bottom of the scale will create more inforseen problems than it will solve.

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

USGrant

[Slapdragon]

I just wanted to say that the group who is responding to this thread is what I would call the Platinum group. I have no idea of when Vanir's tag was launched, but I would apply it to you all. As an adult and intellectual thread without the normal group of flame meisters and people who just plain don't read others posts, this is great.

I think that, and wish that BigTime had time, to run game statistics that test changes outside of the standard BETA test procedure. Use a simple spreadsheet or SPSS, and gathering observational numbers from games played by people from this group. plus qualitative narratives of the action, we could actually find out about the relative weakness of the forces, and place numbers (eventually) on how powerful things are in the game. I volunteer to design and track a study like this, or the gentleman who said he was in physics would be ten times better at it than I (since I am a historian and usually deal with socially constructed research). We would all play a part simply by playing each other in QBs, and recording our results for the study.

Does anyone else thing BigTime would be interested testing the engine in this nontraditional (for wargames) way?

Steve

[Nathman]

Leave it alone. Increasing the price is not going to do anything to deter those who use these vehicles for which they aren't intended.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Although I'm hesitant to do so , I have to say that I agree with Lewis in this thread. Some people are discussing unit costs, and others are talking about VP's for units. The problem is that some people seem to be confusing the two. I just wanted to make this point again, as there appears to be some misunderstandings on this (or maybe it's just me that's got it all wrong!)

MT

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

"The real groundbreaker of CM isn't the 3D modeling, it's the 'holy crap! what the heck was THAT' factor." - Dalem

[Berlichtingen]

Leave it as it is.

Most of the cheap vehicles are transport... and I buy them for that (usually try to drive them off map after they unload their passengers. If a player uses them in a gamey manner against me, I can deal with that. I don't want to pay a lot of points for a jeep that I'm buying to move a .50cal team.

[Guest Lord General MB]

Sirs,

Increase to light tanks:

I find tanks die WAY to fast when pitted against other tanks. Theres usaully a shoot out one guy dies... end of story. Tanks perform differntly against light arms. I find it VERY hard to rush a tank without getting gunned into hamster food. Light tanks work wonders at this! having fast turrets and good machine guns. take for example this game I played resantly:

a german squad is hding in some trees. A staurt starts blasting at them. They can't charge the tank because they'll be enilghted. Backing up the tank with infantry is murder to the oppising infantry, for it makes it impossible to stand up with out beening gunned down. On the other hand.... light tank guns are useless aginst larger tanks. But wait: I've seen sevral cheap light tanks destroy larger slower out numbered heavy tanks (staurt VS jagd tiger). The main exemption to having its points boosted is the chaffee. It's basically an under priced sherman. But has light armour so it levels out.

RECAP: Raise prices on light tanks, but not on the chaffee

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

Cheers,

Lord General Mr. Bill,

1st Army

[Simon Fox]

As if BTS don't get enough 'opinions' on this Forum and elsewhere they go and post a thread asking for more hehe

I am against wholesale changes in points values as the method to address this problem. Though some points value changes to specific vehicles or units has proved necessary I don't think it is required here. Other modifications to 'firing on the move', 'spotting' and 'cross country performance' should hopefully alleviate the problem.

The tactic of trying to draw fire with fast vehicles is not in itself 'gamey' since I can think of plenty of real world examples. For example in the Syrian campaign outside Quonetria (sp?) an Australian Col. drove his staff car round and round at high speed to draw the defenders fire of course they had good fire discipline and didn't. Anyway he wasn't expecting to spot anything it was the support weapons he had in overwatch that were doing that.

Point changes would penalise proper use of these vehicles. British inf Bn. had bucketloads of carriers Bren and sometimes MMG. To use them in combat you need a few because like any other vehicle you need to use bounding overwatch and you need at least 4 to do it properly.

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

"Fatso-the battlers' prince"

[patboivin]

I haven't read all this thread but in my opinion, the points should be left alone.

HOWEVER I agree with one of the posts, people in unarmoured vehicles should be enclined to drive to cover asap when fired at, or when better units are spotted by them.

There should be a morale adjustment there, given how vulnerable these units are.

It would help better simulate recce vehicles, who I am sure did not help their HQs locate enemy units by being blown into a thousand pieces. It seems more likely to me that they would have advanced, and retreated right away whenever contact was made.

It could be useful for those of us who don't know much to see vehicles grouped together like infantry is into battalions, companies, etc. We should still be able to purchase individual units if we want to, but we should be able to buy armour in (relatively) historically accurate groupings. Same for artillery, vehicles, etc.

If people want to play with rampaging MG jeeps, so be it, next time just buy three Wirblewinds, create crossfire lines and wait for those jeeps. They blow up real fast. After a few games of this your U.S. opponent will just drop that tactic.

My opinion.

[Schrullenhaft]

Chiming in with my vote (I haven't actually read every post here, but anyway):

Don't change the points for soft-skinned vehicles. I would suggest point changes on some of the Allied tanks (some of the heavies more expensive and some of the common ones a little cheaper than they are currently).

It is my opinion that too much tinkering with point values to adjust people's behavior will backfire or not produce the desired results. It will be great when rarity and effectiveness can be combined in a single point value in CM2. But there will always be endless discussions on this subject (as there is in every game system that has purchasable units).

My preference for fixing unrealistic "recon by death" is (in addition to the already proposed changes BTS said they would implement) to increase the susceptibility to lower morale states when (soft-skinned) they come under fire. It would also be nice to have such vehicles retreat in the face of determined fire (with the crew still driving the vehicle). So a "pinned" status would have a jeep crew turn tail and either retreat down the axis of approach or to the closest cover.

An armored car on the other hand is a much more viable recon element and hopefully the proposed fixes will eliminate their unrealistic advantages that they currently possess.

What really needs to be addressed here is the effectiveness of the "gamey recon" technique rather than trying to discourage it with victory point bonuses or higher point costs. This means that the best approach would be the harder path (more coding).

I would believe that most of us here realize that there will be no perfect, all encompassing solution, but we all appreciate Steve & Charles dedication to doing everything they can to make this game as enjoyable for everyone as possible.

[pzvg]

One thing I note, folks seem overly concerned with max offroad speed are missing out on something, namely, If you are out in front, "on point" so to speak, you aren't swanning around with your foot on the pedal, diggin on the ray-diddio and cracking jokes.

You move slow, eyes in motion, stopping often even shutting off the engine to hear better, you mistrust every bush and tree within a 1/2 mile, and you're scared ****less all the time. That is recon in WW2, (and later for that matter) Oh and trucks, well they have no "spotting" ability, the ability to spot has, at it's core, the ability to tell someone what you saw, WW2 trucks did not carry radios. But in truth as I said earlier, change whatever, the "gamey"

will change right along with it, it's not the nature of the game, it's the nature of the player.

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

Pzvg

"Confucious say, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

[:USERNAME:]

Just to review:

1. Increase lethality to soft skin vehicles. Make the crews run for cover in the vehicle or abandon vehicle.

2. Decrease spotting to nilch cross country.

3. Increase VP penaltys for loss beyond the cost of vehicle.

4. Increase cost per succesive soft skin. example: 1st jeep regular price second jeep, raise the price, etc. Rare vehicles get crazy price increases. First puma regular price second puma triple price, etc.

5. VP benefit for having trucks near victory locations.

6. Tally at end of scenario could do something like add up the wounded and do a math on the available trucks, etc. This would be a wargaming first. Morale could suffer if you dont care for the wounded! Ammo for next campaign scenario might depend on trucks, etc.

7. Recon platoon purchase. Buy special motorcycles, jeeps, etc historical formations. These are agressive and will do your death by recon.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

If I understand one of the points correctly, the true value of the vehicle in the overall logistical sense isn't captured in its cost.

But since CM is a tactical game, perhaps any tweaking to reflect soft vehicles' importance should come in the assessment of victory points... the little units' value to a CM scenario seems about right to me. The soft targets that make it onto a CM battlefield are there for their perceived tactical contribution. Stupid employment of them should reap a just reward.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This strikes me as a pretty elegant way to approach the problem. I like it.

Might not be the whole story though. I can't see awarding more victory points for a truck than for the squad it could carry, or for a jeep than for a team. There's a balance that has to be found here, but the point that Mark IV is making has merit.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

I think a lot of the problems could be solved if the US vehcicle list was added to (having the ability to buy a M-16 will divert money from jeeps). Another way to solve the problem would to be to create another category so that we would have Armor, Vehicles, and Light Armor, that includes Lt. AFVs, Armored Cars and other light armed vehicles like armed HTs. The current vehicle category would be left for logistical vehicles/transports.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seems so reasonable to me that I wonder why it wasn't done in the first place.

Michael

[Guest Captitalistdoginchina]

I agree with all of you who suggest a low spotting ability for light vehicles when in "Fast move", especially when off road.

The points system should remain unchanged.

This change would deter the problem of gamey tactics with jeeps and so on yet have little impact on how the rest of CM is played.

CDIC

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

"Death solves all problems - no man no problem"

J.V.Stalin, 1918

[Old Dog]

A pleasure to see such enthusiasm from both BTS and the user to "fine-tune" a great game!

To add my vote, I would agree to generally leave the points alone.

Having said this I must add however that I do think the game needs a slight decrease in Sherman and US infantry costs. I tend to agree with those who feel the Allied player is getting the slightly shorter end of the stick, and offer as evidence of this the abundance of German hi-res vehicle mods vs. Allied - if more players were playing the Allied side more often, I expect there would be less disparity. (this is admittedly a biased comment; since my board-gaming days playing Panzer/88/Armor and SL, I have been much more "morally comfortable" playing the Allies, and have always found myself in the minority among lots of players who were fascinated with German iron.)

Definitely implement the previously suggested slow down when off road for wheeled vehicles as well as the spotting constraint, I expect this will reduce some of the silliness going on now among a few players.

Finally, a "Use rarity factor" toggle added to the QB points system, optional of course, would be greatly welcomed.

- Old Dog

[:USERNAME:]

I am not sure if this has been brought up before but jeeps, trucks, etc are automatically in command and control like tanks etc and this is one of the reasons they CAN be abused. In reality, they would have much more flee than fight and getting them to do the stupid things that they CAN do in the game, as fast as they do them, is stinky gamey by-products.

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has been percolating in the back of my head as well, so I naturally regard it as a Great Idea!

Michael

[Oompa-Loompa]

And now a quick interlude to talk about ...STATISTICS! [big Cheer]

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

I think that, and wish that BigTime had time, to run game statistics that test changes outside of the standard BETA test procedure. Use a simple spreadsheet or SPSS, and gathering observational numbers from games played by people from this group. plus qualitative narratives of the action, we could actually find out about the relative weakness of the forces, and place numbers (eventually) on how powerful things are in the game. I volunteer to design and track a study like this, or the gentleman who said he was in physics would be ten times better at it than I (since I am a historian and usually deal with socially constructed research). We would all play a part simply by playing each other in QBs, and recording our results for the study.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An intriguing proposal. As a person who does research for a living and someone who who uses SPSS on a daily basis (at least until I finish my dissertation ) I like the idea of setting up some experiemental tests like the ones you suggest. I figure I might as well combine two of favorite past-times--Statistics and CM! If you want help with the design, let me know.

However, as a caution, this would require a TREMENDOUS amount of care in the design and coding of data.

Firstly, we would have to control for diverse factors such as terrain, weather, etc. which affect individual games. Ordinarily, we could assume such differences would be controlled for by random assignment BUT to ADEQUATELY (sp?)control for such factors would require an extremely high sample size

Secondly, gathering data from the forum at large, risks introducing a high degree of bias (b/c not everyone has the same style of (or experience in) commanding troops-thus some expereinced commanders probably use units in a MUCH different way than newbie commanders (such as myself). Some commanders may be "overly" risky or even "gamey" while other commanders may be more miserly. Again, ordinarily, we could assume such differences would be controlled for by random assignment BUT to ADEQUATELY (sp?) control for such factors would require an extremely high sample size

Thirdly, statistical analysis of qualitative data can be a very tricky, reitierative process (usng programs such as NUDIST)- unless we just reduce the data to categorical variables in which simple MANOVA's or logistic regressions (ala SPSS)could be used. However, again we would have consider whether or not we are missing fine distinctions in the qualitative data.

There are more points, but you get the idea. Overall, I LOVE your idea , but it would require very careful attention to the design. If you want any help, and if you are interested in continuing the project, let me know.

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

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

Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I just couldn't let this pass. Regarding jeeps and recon, they were used for this a lot and for the same reason that gamers do: they were fast, cheap, and plentiful. And while some recon was done by stealth, a lot of it inevitably was done in the saddle, especially in the case of armies in rapid advance, such as the post-Cobra pursuit across France.

Secondly, as for banning recon elements from QBs, I would oppose such a move. Some of the most interesting scenarios I have set up involved hypothetical recon operations. I wouldn't like to see the ability to play such scenarios dropped from QBs.

I do agree that use of units in ahistorical ways (especially ahistorical force mixes as has already been addressed by others in this thread) is a continuing problem (although not for me, since I have only played the AI). While I'm all for finding ways to encourage players to play in a historical manner, I think we have to be really, really careful how we go about it and make sure that the cure is not worse than the complaint.

Michael

[BasilD]

Wellll, I'm baffled by the people who can't deal with a Jeep recon force. In my experience, if the Jeep takes one MG burst, the guy jumps out and the jeep goes careening into a ditch. What?! people don't

have MG positions? All I see jeeps as being is a waste of points, unless you need to tool

your flamethrowers or other slow such guys to the front, and in that case Im sure not

reconning around like an idiot.

As for the T8, Humbar, and T20 these units maybe could use a 5 point increase or such,

in that they can take anything short of a 20mm cannon shell. But by the same token, I definitely agree with the people who argue that the Allies are already inferior to the Germans in point by point value for vehicles.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've played some 2-4 game series with opponents who's play and written exchanges I enjoy. I can think of more than one person who with I have won every game played as the germans and lost every game played as the allies. Not that I haven't won as the allies or lost as the germans but I'd venture to say 60% of my wins are as the germans and I ALWAYS switch off sides or offer to when I replay someone. I'd really be curious to see someone analyze on of the CM ladders' results and see just what the percentage of German vs Allied wins is. Offhand I would not be at all surprised if it was 60-40 germans.

In any case my point is that any point increase is just going to take away one of the only advantages the allies have left: superior light armour. I strongly feel that already, for play balance purposes the cost of most allied tanks should be reduced by about 10%, but as it is now the imbalance is not that great. Still, it exists, and not just in armour. Another problem is that the Allies do not have anything close to the flexibility in infantry purchases. But thats not the subject here.

My proposal, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned it that I've seen, perhaps even its already in the game, but why not simply make a distinction between wheeled and tracked vehicles in terms of on-road and off-road movement? Simply give wheeled vehicles a bonus on roads, and a corresponding penalty(ies) off road? The idea of making spotting ability lower at high speeds also seems viable. Anyways I'm sure ive missed something but thats all I can think of at the moment.

Oh yeah, just a general suggestion but using random weather or time can really even things out for the allies...

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

As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

[Slapdragon]

I agree Oompa-Loompa, but here is how we can fix some of the things.

1) Random Sides- That way you have an equal chance of playing either side which controls for people who know one side over another.

2) Random Plays- We would match people up randomly for this uberladder which would control for player skill.

3) Random Maps- This would mean we were not testing for map design since the map is always different. However -- we would code for general map type and see if map type has a correlation with points gained.

4) Random Forces- Either produced by the researchers to makes sure we would get enough different vehicles used often enough to test significance vs victory.

MANOVA would be one of the powerful tools but a number of other tests, including just descriptives, cross tabs, and correlation tests would also work.

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

I like this idea too, but I would extend it to all nationalities, not just the Americans. A bonus is that it would tend to discourage the "mix & match" OOBs that keep turning up.

Michael