How to keep people from buying 9 jumbo's or 9 Jagdtigers?

[Dittohead]

My solution to keep people from buying 9 jumbo's or 9 KT, would be to impose a multiple purchase penalty on those rarer vehicles.

For example a Jagdtiger would have a rarity factor of say 50%. So you can buy one at the normal price, but if you buy two the second jagdtiger costs 50 % more. The third would be 50% again above the price of the second one.

This would hopefully keep force compositions more historical. Plus with 5000 point limit in QB, that will still buy a lot of firepower.

Would like to hear other suggestions and maybe BTS could make the adjustment in a future patch.

Tony

[SS_PanzerLeader]

I dont buy that way.. but I dont care if my opponent wants 9 jumbos.. I wont cry ..bring it on Not everyone should be forceed to play the way you would like to play

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!]

I'm thinking that the original point limit of 1000 in a QB was BTS's way of keeping the purchases more historically accurate. The increase to 5000 points was a response to popular demand.

But if one player has loads of points to spend on Jagdtigers', then the other player has loads to spend on things that will kill a Jagdtiger.

Unless one is trying to recreate an actual historical engagement, where the OOB is predefined, it's prolly not a big deal IMHO. In a PBEM, you could always stipulate a point limit lower than 5000 anyway.

Cheers,

OGSF

[Darren J Pierson]

One thing to keep in mind is that many of us only play against the AI and not other human opponents, at least not yet. It might be worthwhile to have limits on competitive games, but many of us sometimes want to set up unrealistic situations just to see what would happen. (Such as the 100 jeeps vs. a tiger test.) Any additional restrictions on what someone can buy when we are just having fun hurts the game, IMHO. Plus, a good player should be able to defeat such an unbalanced force, or so I have been led to believe.

Darren

[Dittohead]

Then again maybe just have it as an option when you start. Have a box to check to use historical point numbers, otherwise blast away. After all you can never have too many options.

[Darren J Pierson]

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

Then again maybe just have it as an option when you start. Have a box to check to use historical point numbers, otherwise blast away. After all you can never have too many options. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good idea. Controls and choices. Always a nice combination.

Darren

[This message has been edited by Darren J Pierson (edited 07-30-2000).]

[KiwiJoe]

Just imposse a max # limit to all armour/vehicle/support. IE. no more than 3 of anything.

[MERC]

Seems to me that people are forgetting that in a QB there are limits on how many points you can spend in each category (infantry, support vehicles, Tanks, artillery and fortification). To spend all your points, your gonna have to purchase a somewhat balanced force.

It just impossible to spend all your point on Jumbo's or HT's.

For example take a QB of 2000 pts, meeting engagement the American side would only be able to buy 2 jumbo's and 1 Easy-Eight. The Germans side would only be able to buy 11 HT's.

[Dittohead]

Don't forget if you slect armor force not combined arms you can use all your points on armor.

[Supertanker]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!:

But if one player has loads of points to spend on Jagdtigers', then the other player has loads to spend on things that will kill a Jagdtiger.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ain't that the truth. If someone has enough points to buy nine Jagdtigers, I will have enough points to create a tungsten blizzard. You will be able to walk across the battlefield and step only on spent 90mm casings and burnt-out german vehicles. To say nothing of the large-caliber artillery and air support.

[MERC]

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

Don't forget if you slect armor force not combined arms you can use all your points on armor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes - but how is that a problem. When your setting up a QB, you and your oppenent should agree on the parameters of the battle.

If you want a more historical setup you choose COMBINED ARMS, if you want to fight a all armour battle you chose ARMOR, if you want to fight all infantry you choose either INFANTRY or MECH INFANTRY -- the choices are all there based on your and your oppenents preference.

[Pacestick]

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

Just imposse a max # limit to all armour/vehicle/support. IE. no more than 3 of anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds awfully like the way NZ defence planners think, you in the government Kiwijoe?

[Bastables]

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

Sounds awfully like the way NZ defence planners think, you in the government Kiwijoe? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you'll find Her Majestys Govt of NZ prefers Multiples of 2 as opposed to three, easy to count up and you end up with a cheaper force

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

There are many times that I am relieved to see an opponent tie up large numbers of points in UberTanks.... slow rate of fire, slow mph, slow turret, and easy to bog down.

This can all be resloved on a voluntary basis. If you want historical OOB's and that sort of thing, insist on designed scenarios, and just don't play people who are incompatibale with your playstyle.

Stay frosty..

[Zamo]

I don't see this as an issue at all. If it is agreed between two players that a game must be historically correct, then honor dictates that each shall buy accordingly. Or let the machine pick. I think that usually produces the funnest load out, largely because you get stuck with what you have, like a real force commander.

I for one, sometimes like to play a game that is not at all historically accurate. I seldom have a TOE or Order of Battle handy and just guesss as I select equipment. I play this game for fun, mostly, and if I want to get a bunch of Jpz's mixed in with some heavy armor, then hey, that's what I want. Don't tell me what I can buy. Otherwise you will almost always end up with a game where the Germans are predisposed to loose, as that is historically accurate. Not much fun to me. I like giving the poor hun a chance to throw back the allies from time to time. My .02 cents

Zamo

[Jarmo]

I actually feel the supertanks are too cheap. You can have a

King Tiger for the price of 2 Shermans! Same for Jumbo, and

the Panther is even cheaper. Making them even more expensive

would lead to more realistic forces.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Milt Smegma]

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

Sounds awfully like the way NZ defence planners think, you in the government Kiwijoe? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey we don't even have Armor any more: they have retired our only "tanks"...a handful of Scorpions....

But back to the original question

IMHO no more limits need be put in place unless you have options like Dittohead suggested,perhaps the checkbox...

It is ,after all,a GAME not a simulation

[gezeder]

i agree that some of the big stuff is too cheap - leading to it's deployment too often.

mabye even better (perhaps for CM2) would be to have 3 ratings for vehicles? like common, rare, & very rare.

then, set it so that you can only have, say, one rare vehicle, then allow another rare vehicle for every 3 common bought, another vary rare for every 5 common bought.

then, we'd have more correct OOB's - eg. 3 shermans 75's, with one (rare) firefly as well....

and jumbo's would only be available if there were quite a few normal shermans around, etc.

doubt it'll happen in a patch, but mabye for CM2?

[Jarmo]

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

then, set it so that you can only have, say, one rare vehicle, then allow another rare vehicle for every 3 common bought, another vary rare for every 5 common bought.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be fine, as an option you can turn on/off.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Fionn]

I think that the simplest and best way to deal with this is for the players to set the parameters of the game before purchasing.

So, if players decide to limit themselves to "short 75s" then this means that no German tank will be allowed to have a gun larger than 75 l/48 and that no allied tank will be allowed to have a gun larger than 75mm ( Close support 105mm and 150mm assault tanks are excluded from this of course)...

This simple agreement has the effect of ensuring an even tank battle.

One other way is to choose to limit yourself to historical forces... In this way if you buy 4 tanks you can't buy 4 Fireflies but must buy at least 2 Sherman 75s and 2 Fireflies.

Rarity factors are BAD because they screw up the points balance which has been achieved during beta testing and PBEM meeting engagements with equal points wouldn't really be equal if rarity is factored in. I'd stop playing PBEM if rarity was factored in.

Keep the points a reflection of tactical utility and leave it up to the players to decide what is and isn't allowed.

The ONLY problem with buying 9 JagdTigers lies in the occasion where your opponent thought you were just going to play a battle with "medium" forces and buys Sherman 75s and 76s..

This is why, IMO, so long as both player set the parameters on spending before the game all should be well. That way you won't have someone facing 9 JTs or 9 Sherman Jumbo 76s with Sherman 75s or Pz IVs

I think simple common sense can substitute for a load of painful programming in this case.

[Jarmo]

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

One other way is to choose to limit yourself to historical forces... In this way if you buy 4 tanks you can't buy 4 Fireflies but must buy at least 2 Sherman 75s and 2 Fireflies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's easy for you to do, I'd imagine. I on the other hand, have

no idea how rare fireflies were. I know King Tigers were rare and

Shermans were common, but that's about it.

That's the reason it would be nice to have something to point

in the right direction. Just a mention if the vechile was "rare" or

"common" would be enough.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Andre76]

Just downsize the point limit or select comined arms. I thought the whole reason behind point sizes was to ensure the armys were well matched. I wouldn't like if everything is going to be regulated. As others has pointed out, if you buy much of one thing you will suffer in other departmets (SP, Inf, Art.) and the, if you have the know how you could exploit that.

This and common sense should be enough. If you don't like the way a person play, don't play aginst him! No problem.

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

André

[David Aitken]

KiwiJoe wrote:

> Just imposse a max # limit to all armour/vehicle/support. IE. no more than 3 of anything.

So I can't have four machineguns?

Fionn wrote:

> So, if players decide to limit themselves to "short 75s" then this means that no German tank will be allowed to have a gun larger than 75 l/48 [...] This simple agreement has the effect of ensuring an even tank battle.

Making sure each side has exactly the same weapons is not the only way to get an 'even' battle. The points system already ensures that you can either have a small, powerful force or a large, weak force.

This is not THE tweak which needs to be made to unit selection. You could ask for all kinds of limiting factors - you could argue that it's unrealistic to be able to have British, Americans, French and Canadians all fighting together, for example. There are all sorts of things you can do, and it's not up to BTS to program ways to stop you.

I might point out that having a small number of powerful units is very risky. It is extremely common in war to lose a proportion of your assets even before you start fighting, and this factor is not absent from CM. You can easily lose a tank through bad luck - and if it was the centrepiece of your force, you're screwed. Varied forces are inherently stronger.

Again, I think we should stop running up to BTS and nagging them for this-and-that. Like many people have said here, if the person you're playing against is being silly, don't play them. It's not BTS's job to stop people being silly.

David

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 07-31-2000).]

[gaffertape]

I just choose to play people who keep things relatively realistic... Often I've wanted to buy a load of Fireflies, but historically they were grouped with three or four standard Shermans, so that's what I do.

Its more enjoyable if you keep it real.

GAFF

[Fionn]

"Making sure each side has exactly the same weapons is not the only way to get an 'even' battle. "

Well, they're hardle the "same". All I am saying is that a simple rule of thumb can be used to ensure both side's tanks are roughly comparable and neither side is going to have an invincible collosus roaming the field.

Still, as everyone else here has said.. If a guy spends 90% of his points on tanks then he's probably going to lose since a zook will mess up ANY tank with a side hit and odds are you'll have lots of the little buggers running around vs just 1 or 2 of his big tanks.