SMG thread annex

[JasonC]

Since the SMG threads have spun on for upwards of 20 pages and several hundred posts, and now seems focused on relative spotting whines instead, I thought I'd start over here.

I first have this question for the fans of the subject. Having pecked out more than War and Peace debating it abstractly, I wonder how many - if any - of the posters on that thread have tried out any of the proposals made. There is to me something rather silly about dozens of people having strident views in endless variety and at great length, about something they have never experimented with.

So I invite posters to relate their experiences with tweaked ammo levels (more shots for rifle-heavy, less for automatic heavy squad types) or the suggestions about force mixes (more rifle-armed, 1 LMG German infantry types, and more Allied paras). Have you tried either or both? With what results? What did you think of it, in feel, realism, tactics used, play balance, etc? Or is everyone just pontificating without any varied experience in the matter?

I will also address a couple of side issues from the old thread, but seperately.

[Mr. Johnson--]

I've tried tweaking the ammo levels in the newer scenarios I've made. I like it. But its a little annoying changing them for a couple dozen squads.

I've been using more paras latey in my QBs because of all the SMGers out there, And I like it. Half the time when I'm Allied I would pick normal rifle squads and get chewed up in tight terrian. Then as German I would decide to be nice and just take moterized platoons or Rifles, but then would run into Red Devils with Churchells, So what ya gonna do. I suppose I could spend 10 minutes before a game deciding what rules to play with, or just play to win, or give my enemy the address for the CAL rules.

[Mr. Johnson--]

OH yeah, why no allied Engineer companies in CMBO?

[offtaskagain]

Because CM is supposed to be battalion scale max and a platoon is usually all an infantry battalion ever saw. Companies were usually attached at regimental level.

[PVLLVS MAXIMVS]

I have only a small amount of experience with multiplayer CM games, but I have to say I dont see what the big honkin deal is. I dont think that SMG squads are all that unrealisticly modeled with the possible acception of ammo loads. Excesive use of them can perhaps unbalance the game, but thats the same of any really good units. Just like all the griping about people who take nothing but panthers and Tigers in their games. Bah.

The thing about all this stuff is that its use is VOLUNTARY. Ive had plenty of success simply agreeing with my PBEM companions ahead of time "no more than one SMG platoon", or something like that. And as a rule, I think one smg platoon per company or so of other troops is both realisitic (no research to back that up tho), and faire. After all, even when *I* use that force mix, I still get my butt kicked, so it cant be unbalancing the game that bad.

If you find yourself stuck playing someone who uses scads and scads of SMGers, just dont play em. There doesnt seem to be any shortage of potential oponents, and as many of them have said they thought there was a problem at one point or another, I dont see how it could be too hard to find people willing to compromise.

Just my 2 cents.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PVLLVS MAXIMVS:

I have only a small amount of experience with multiplayer CM games, but I have to say I dont see what the big honkin deal is. I dont think that SMG squads are all that unrealisticly modeled with the possible acception of ammo loads. Excesive use of them can perhaps unbalance the game, but thats the same of any really good units. Just like all the griping about people who take nothing but panthers and Tigers in their games. Bah.

The thing about all this stuff is that its use is VOLUNTARY. Ive had plenty of success simply agreeing with my PBEM companions ahead of time "no more than one SMG platoon", or something like that. And as a rule, I think one smg platoon per company or so of other troops is both realisitic (no research to back that up tho), and faire. After all, even when *I* use that force mix, I still get my butt kicked, so it cant be unbalancing the game that bad.

If you find yourself stuck playing someone who uses scads and scads of SMGers, just dont play em. There doesnt seem to be any shortage of potential oponents, and as many of them have said they thought there was a problem at one point or another, I dont see how it could be too hard to find people willing to compromise.

Just my 2 cents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This usually works for me also, but sometimes SMGs get screwed when the map turns out pretty open and I get some HMG support in a nicely placed stone building.

[JasonC]

So from Mr Johnson I see an "I liked it", and two substantive points. One, yes it can be a pain to change the ammo levels for every squad when making a scenario. I'd personally like to see a global setting for ammo, like fanaticism is now, with "+5, +10, -5, -10" ammo options for regular squads, different from the default 40. Then if that ammo level is appropriate for the force type, you hit that once and don't have to dial in all the "35s". It can also be used just to simulate high or low ammo, units that have already been engaged slightly, or that have dumped ammo available, etc. As designers see fit. That is a suggestion for BTS, for CM2 e.g.

As for the problem with "playing fair" in unit selection and then the other guy takes all paras and Churchills, I agree that can be a problem. In two senses - one, when it isn't anything discussed beforehand and one gets "surprised" by the practice of an opponent, and two when one needs lectures beforehand about what one can't use, etc. Half the point is to *avoid* the "you can't take SMGs" whines.

What about a Fionn like set of agreed settings? It can be anything goes, like now. As alternates agreed levels (akin to "75" and "76"), one can specify "few automatics" or "many automatics".

"Few automatics" would mean Allies avoid overuse of paras i.e. you can take paras but don't mix force types, use them with armor, etc, while in return the Germans use infantry types with 1 LMG per squad and some rifles in each (rifle 44 and 45, security, VG rifle, pioneers, etc), not all SMG or all 2-LMG squad types. "Many automatics" means the Germans can take the other types as much as they want, and the Allies can use paras mixed with other force types, with armor, etc, as much as they want.

As for the other comments, none of them make any reference to actually trying either suggestion, so they strike me as rather silly. Saying "it is no big deal" or "what's to fix?" is kinda vacuous, when you haven't tested the proposals first, to see what the heck you are discussing.

[Slapdragon]

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

So from Mr Johnson I see an "I liked it", and two substantive points. One, yes it can be a pain to change the ammo levels for every squad when making a scenario. I'd personally like to see a global setting for ammo, like fanaticism is now, with "+5, +10, -5, -10" ammo options for regular squads, different from the default 40. Then if that ammo level is appropriate for the force type, you hit that once and don't have to dial in all the "35s". It can also be used just to simulate high or low ammo, units that have already been engaged slightly, or that have dumped ammo available, etc. As designers see fit. That is a suggestion for BTS, for CM2 e.g.

As for the problem with "playing fair" in unit selection and then the other guy takes all paras and Churchills, I agree that can be a problem. In two senses - one, when it isn't anything discussed beforehand and one gets "surprised" by the practice of an opponent, and two when one needs lectures beforehand about what one can't use, etc. Half the point is to *avoid* the "you can't take SMGs" whines.

What about a Fionn like set of agreed settings? It can be anything goes, like now. As alternates agreed levels (akin to "75" and "76"), one can specify "few automatics" or "many automatics".

"Few automatics" would mean Allies avoid overuse of paras i.e. you can take paras but don't mix force types, use them with armor, etc, while in return the Germans use infantry types with 1 LMG per squad and some rifles in each (rifle 44 and 45, security, VG rifle, pioneers, etc), not all SMG or all 2-LMG squad types. "Many automatics" means the Germans can take the other types as much as they want, and the Allies can use paras mixed with other force types, with armor, etc, as much as they want.

As for the other comments, none of them make any reference to actually trying either suggestion, so they strike me as rather silly. Saying "it is no big deal" or "what's to fix?" is kinda vacuous, when you haven't tested the proposals first, to see what the heck you are discussing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok Jason C. In two scenarios with random boards and infantry versus infantry I found that in one case the open board had more effect on the game than the ammo (the SMG units got pelted by the US 44 squads in a meeting engagement) and in one case Lowering ammo had no effect because neither side had but a few units that ran out of ammo even with only 20 shots. Support weapons did the most shooting, the infantry did the most dieing.

Germanboy and I were going to test various solutions when I withdrew it because my own tests showed it had not much effect one way of the other.

Four tests conducted of platoons, German VG SMG versus US INF 44 on a specially made gun fight board showed what you would expect, the Germans cleaned up at short range, the US at long range.

In all cases it was apparent that the lack of armor made a big deal on the fighting, almost stalemating some of the games. It seems that the last tank standing has a powerful effect on the game, more so than the relatively minor SMG variable.

[JasonC]

So Slapdragon concludes "it doesn't matter". He therefore has nothing to offer against humoring those who prefer the suggestions.

Next?

[olandt]

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

As for the problem with "playing fair" in unit selection and then the other guy takes all paras and Churchills, I agree that can be a problem. In two senses - one, when it isn't anything discussed beforehand and one gets "surprised" by the practice of an opponent, and two when one needs lectures beforehand about what one can't use, etc. Half the point is to *avoid* the "you can't take SMGs" whines.

What about a Fionn like set of agreed settings? It can be anything goes, like now. As alternates agreed levels (akin to "75" and "76"), one can specify "few automatics" or "many automatics".

"Few automatics" would mean Allies avoid overuse of paras i.e. you can take paras but don't mix force types, use them with armor, etc, while in return the Germans use infantry types with 1 LMG per squad and some rifles in each (rifle 44 and 45, security, VG rifle, pioneers, etc), not all SMG or all 2-LMG squad types. "Many automatics" means the Germans can take the other types as much as they want, and the Allies can use paras mixed with other force types, with armor, etc, as much as they want.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An alternative to many/few rules is simply to but units at the appropriate level, by which I mean, if you buy 3 platoons, you must buy a company instead. For volksgrenadiers this means one rifle44 platoon for every 2 SMG platoon. You should be forced to buy the Battalion if you are purchasing 9 platoons and the Battalion cost is not greater than 50-80% of your total allotement (some Battalions will have truly inappropriate units for attacking and to preserve force mix necesitates leaving some of the support units home)

As for tests, I don't need no stinking tests.

[imported_Kampfgruppe_Commander]

Congrats, JasonC. I see you finally finished your degree in "Obnoxious Prick." When do you go for your Masters?

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

Because CM is supposed to be battalion scale max and a platoon is usually all an infantry battalion ever saw. Companies were usually attached at regimental level.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly right. In Commonwealth formations, an infantry battalion had a Pioneer Platoon (this is included in CM). At the Divisional level, there were Field Companies, RE (Royal Engineers, or RCE, Royal Canadian Engineers). These did not act in direct support of armoured or infantry battalions and their inclusion in CM would be ahistorical. While they often performed their (dangerous and important) work under enemy observation and fire, they did not take part directly in ground combat.

Each infantry division had three Field Companies of 250 men and 7 officers. This would have included drivers, storesmen, etc. and worked out to one company for every three infantry battalions. Each division also had a bridging platoon and field park company, that did bridging and earthmoving tasks. Much of their equipment was heavy and not simulated in CM, and is pretty much outside the scope of a "typical" infantry or armoured battle. Some specialized equipment like the AVRE is modelled, but as David (?) and others have pointed out, aren't especially accurately modelled with terms to actual usage or capabilities.

[Username]

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

Congrats, JasonC. I see you finally finished your degree in "Obnoxious Prick." When do you go for your Masters?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think he is a prick. He may be a bit flustered that something he believes in is not getting the attention he feels it deserves.

Myself, I think things like spotting, infantry firepower modeling, MGs, etc are more important. But thats just me.

Now. To lighten up this thread. Who needs a laugh? Want a good laugh? Look at Kampfgruppe_Commander picture. Its in his bio info. Hes all dressed up fer der rumble!!!! He is one of dem drezzuppenzeetruppen!!!

KG_Commando likes to dress up fer der pictures. He feels it offsets his obviously white trash breeding. Look at der nose! Like ze saukopf assault gunz! Oinken-ze-oinker!!!!

Sieg heil loser!

Lewis

[ASL Veteran]

Jason C is standing at attention on the viewing platform. I walk slowly toward Jason with a huge medal in my hands and slowly pin the medal onto Jason's chest. I turn toward the crowd of 6000+ consisting of all the members of this forum and begin to speak.

"I am now pinning this medal on Jason's chest for the dramatic improvement his idea has made for all of our gaming experiences. I believe that all gamers should use this swell idea for limiting SMG ammunition because if you do not your quality of life will suffer. The idea of lowering SMG ammunition by ten points is so life altering that I can't believe that I ever played CM without it. Since this discussion on SMG ammunition will never ever end until everyone on this board admits that this is a fantastic idea I suggest we all give Jason a fabulous round of applause to show that consensus has been achieved!"

(a deafening roar erupts from the crowd as every single member of the CM community shouts out with approval)

"Jason," I say "would you like to say a few words to the admiring crowd now?"

"Why thank you, I don't mind if I do" Jason replies. Jason adjusts his uniform and draws himself to his full height

"Ahem" tapping the microphone "I would just like to thank all of you for finally admitting that there is a massive flaw in CM with regards to the German SMG squads. Not only have I proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Allies had more SMGs, but I have also proven that the German SMG is overmodelled and demonstrates a pro Nazi bias from the team at BTS. I am so happy that everyone has finally seen the light and that this new idea of reducing SMG ammunition will be implemented by the entire community. This is a very great day in the JasonC household because I have prevailed at last!"

(Roaring applause and shouts erupt from the crowd) Jason raises his hand for quiet,

"fair people of the CM community .... please do not applause for me for I am but a humble servant of the game of CM. I only wish to see my ideas forcibly implemented because I think that it is in the best interests of all of you gamers who don't see the problem as I do. This idea is good for you whether you realize it or not! All I ever asked for was consensus on my fantabulistic idea because I know that this will cure all of CM's ills. Now that we have reached consensus though, I think we should turn our attention to celebrating my triumph. It is a triumph of the sparkling intellect of my gargantubrain over that of my dimwitted and peabrained opponents. They have finally come to their senses and pinned a medal on my chest as I so rightly deserve. Thank you all and goodnight." (a roaring standing ovation from all the members of the forum erupts relieved that Jason is finally finished.)

[Username]

ASL Conscript

Is ASL an abreviation for something that rythmes with BASSPOLE?

Lewis

[Mark IV]

Gentlemen:

The Peng Challenge thread, aka the Cesspool, is beginning to eye this thread with suspicion, as a potential competitor.

While no one there is arrogant enough to compel anyone to play CM in a manner that anyone could voluntarily do anyway, at least without intentionally trying to be funny, there are certainly all the seeds for an alternative Cesspool here.

Our ample supply of staff lawyers will be watching....

PS: Unless one embraces the notion that the ammo loadout for SMGs is historically inaccurate, there is no reason for the test. Efforts would be better directed to establishing that premise. For those who do not accept the premise, imagining fewer bullets is relatively easy, but irrelevant. Or is the loadout adjustment a gamey compromise for a fancied inaccuracy in the FP? Is there an echo in here?

[Username]

Anyone want to play an infantry game where every unit is LOW in ammo and every unit is also weary?

[Mr. Johnson--]

Thats BS ASL vet. JasonC has tried to use realistic reasoning around this topic.

He has not gone off the deep end saying BTS has a Pro-Nazi bent. You doing that enough for everyone.

[WWB]

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

Anyone want to play an infantry game where every unit is LOW in ammo and every unit is also weary?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the first scenario I designed was a night meeting engagement in the fog featuring a hodge-podge of green, exhausted units.

But I found it to be annoying to play and dropped the thing.

WWB

[Michael Dorosh]

ASL Vet, that post was braintabulous!

Now, getting back to the real point of this thread - Engineers.

I guess I will respond to the question in the German Pioneer thread - sorry to the original poster that I didn't answer while it was on page one. Forgot all about it.

The answer to the question about how long it took us to build the German bunker using handsaws is - I am not sure. We did it over several weekends. We also dug the hole with a tractor, and the wood was mostly deadfall; we had to limb the trees, but not chop them down. It was cosy, though - we had a coal stove, and bunk beds, the roof was reinforced with corrugated metal, railroad timbers and sheet plastic (I know, we cheated!). I couldn't tell you how many manhours, but with a squad of re-enactors, it didn't take overly long.

[imported_Kampfgruppe_Commander]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

Thats BS ASL vet. JasonC has tried to use realistic reasoning around this topic.

He has not gone off the deep end saying BTS has a Pro-Nazi bent. You doing that enough for everyone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pro-Nazi bent? Let's get real!

ASL Vet, as always, is correct. Jason has come up with the absolute most perfect solution to CM's failings not only as a game, but as a simulation.

In fact, his solution is so perfect, I am not sure why he didn't just outline this excellent and wonderful proposal in the first place.

In fact, I think it should be required reading. I would like to see it added to the CM2 FAQ. Panzer Leader?

I would also like to see all websites feature this innovative new simulation concept, preferably on their main index page.

I should think it should be made an errata page for the printed rulebook as well. Does anyone know what font to use when printing these pages out?

Lord General MB should also present a well earned award to JasonC for doing this great service to the CM Community.

Kudos to JasonC for weathering the storms of doubt and ingratitude in presenting us this, the Holy Grail of CM fixes.

God Bless you, JasonC. I am sure the memories of our gloried war dead, no matter what Army they served, have been justice by you and this outstanding piece of work.

God Bless them all.

[Jeff Heidman]

It just goes to show that whatever else the CM community has a shortage of, pricks are in abundance.

The sycophants really load up for bear when someone (horror of horrors!) suggests room for improvement, and has the audacity to back it up with reason and the balls to stick with it despite the yapping rats at his heels.

This forum is so tiring.

Jeff Heidman

[JasonC]

Olandt has a suggestion, but I don't think it addresses much of the issue. I suppose there may be some players out there taking 100% VG SMG platoons, but I've not seen it. The SMG infantry type has 77% automatics even buying companies; FJs have 70%, etc.

If the Allies have to buy paras by company, they lose quite a bit of flexibility. They can't mix glider and para types below the company level in that case. For the US, that also means the mix of support weapons becomes quite rigid. A couple of paratroop and one or two glider platoon(s), e.g., is often a better company mix, and accurate enough for what might be scraped together in a drop (let alone to simulate line infantry with extra carbines and SMGs). One platoon of engineers (pace Mr. Dorosh's other topic) is also a realistic item, so a hard requirement to "take a battalion if there are 9 platoons" or anything similar, seems too rigid to me.

Moreover, the number of possible weapons mixes for the Allies takes rather a dive with his suggestion (6 US platoons implies exactly 6 60mm mortars e.g.), but with all the German infantry types available, they can still pretty much pick the mix they want while still using companies to do it. It might make some difference in the largest battles, "requiring" whole battalions. The problem does not seem to me to be flexibility below the company level, and flexibility is already skewed toward the Germans. So reducing it further for both sides is not going to balance anything.

As for ASL vet, he seems not to have grokked my point about Slapdragon's comments - perhaps because he may not agree with those comments, I suppose. Half the reason I have suggested that skeptics try my proposals is to see the scale of difference they make, and that it is in the nature of a tweak. Not "test", mind, but try, as in new scenarios and ordinary competitive games. Regarding the change as not big enough to upset anything Slapdragon regards as important, is quite sufficient, whether ASL Veteran notices that or not.

An anecdotal analogy - one fellow I am playing right now prefers renumbering files for record keeping and back up purposes. I prefer overwriting, because my email is saved regularly, so retrieving a past file from the original attachments (time stamped etc) is simple, without cluttering my PBEM directory with numbered files. But my preference in the matter is trivial, mostly a matter of indifference, so naturally we do it the way he likes. There is no reason not to, because nothing serious is involved as far as my preferences go on the subject. It costs nothing to do it his way.

Similarly, if someone likes the changes and regards them as improvements, obviously it is a gain to them when they are used. If someone else doesn't care one way or the other because they doubt it makes any real difference, then it costs nothing to indulge the first fellow. To not do something that one party to a game thinks improves it, requires not indifference on a partner's part - which is what Slapdragon expressed - but a definite preference in the other direction.

But so far, despite plenty of whining and moaning, I haven't heard anyone say that they have tried the suggestions, found they did make a significant difference, and that they dislike the differences they made. Perhaps some people think that would be the case even though they haven't tried it. Perhaps some people have tried it and found it so, but haven't bothered to tell any of the rest of us. Or to say just what earth shattering impact they found the proposals had, that they think so unacceptable.

Personally, I think there aren't any earth shattering impacts, but that they do make a difference and for the better - obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have made the proposals. I suspect some people think they would have marginal impacts that they wouldn't like (perhaps making a favorite force mix less effective, calling for revisions of some system, whatever), and carp about the suggestions because of that. But then don't come out and say so directly, perhaps because they think said marginal impacts being undesirable to them, is something they can't defend publically, or don't wish to at any rate.

Others perhaps can't be bothered one way or another, but why any such would regale us with their indifference then becomes something of a mystery. Then there are the one liner dismissals even at this late date, perhaps with the excuse of coming late in some cases (I am not sure, I don't keep track), that pretend the content of the proposals hasn't been hashed over at (frankly rather absurd) length, already. No Virginia, the soil is quite well tilled.

It was two weeks ago that I suggested the skeptics try them before pretending to judge them, and two posters to their credit say they have. But a fellow who thinks it makes a big difference but a bad one, and therefore should not be done - and ready to say why, based on having tried it, and argument about the results seen - has yet to show himself.

As for the idea that they aren't relevant at all, I cite the anecdotal evidence of my most recent three PBEMs. One involved a stipulation "no SMG hordes" from a fellow who effectively offered me the Germans; so I took a low automatic infantry type of course. The other two, without any stipulation, had me with German infantry once and using a low automatic type against vanilla Allied infantry, and a return game had me with vanilla Allied infantry while my opponent took VG infantry.

Everyone is being sportsmenlike, of course; I have no complaints whatever. But I think I would have prefered an agreed "low automatics" understanding to the first (vague) "no SMG hordes" stipulation, and a previous understanding that "high automatics" were fine (or a "anything goes", just as well), to the way the second pair went. And if a 3rd party "ref" / map chooser could have tweaked ammo levels, I would have used it, and found the choice of infantry types more interesting - trading off ammo staying power and close-range fp, etc.

For the latecomers who may not have heard my suggestions about using the settings, I reiterate the way I see them being used. Someone who wants such tweaks or infanry type restrictions, announces so to his partner. If the other agrees that is that. If not, the first fellow should offer the second a choice - either no such changes or restrictions will be used *but* first fellow gets choice of side, or the second fellow gets choice of side but the proposals are used. Incidentally, I also suggest the same sort of thing for Fionn's armor categories - do both at once as a package.

The benefit of this system is that both sides are encouraged to pick the suggestion they think comes closest to balancing the game - while still being flexible enough for anyone more concerned about a seperate idea of realism, or with strong preferences about the kind of battle they'd like to see, to be heard. It is a formula for fairness every child can understand - if you cut, I choose.

[Battlefront.com]

Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The sycophants really load up for bear when someone (horror of horrors!) suggests room for improvement, and has the audacity to back it up with reason and the balls to stick with it despite the yapping rats at his heels.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As usual, your Holy Crusade to slay the Evil Sycophants is full of selective reasoning. What do I mean? JasonC, who has been at this for months now (and I have spent many hours responding to, BTW), clearly asked for opinions. Here is what he said in his first post:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>o I invite posters to relate their experiences with tweaked ammo levels (more shots for rifle-heavy, less for automatic heavy squad types) or the suggestions about force mixes (more rifle-armed, 1 LMG German infantry types, and more Allied paras). Have you tried either or both? With what results? What did you think of it, in feel, realism, tactics used, play balance, etc? Or is everyone just pontificating without any varied experience in the matter?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what happens when Slapdragon responds to this question, with absolutely no hint of sarcasim or disrespect?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So Slapdragon concludes "it doesn't matter". He therefore has nothing to offer against humoring those who prefer the suggestions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, great. Ask people for their honest opinion, then tell them to shut up when it isn't what they want to hear. If this is the kind of discussion you want to see here Jeff, preach on.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

As for my views on this issue, I have already gone on record a couple dozen times so I rather not do so again. However, I will say that I am going to be a lot happier when CMBB comes out with Rarity as an option. A whole slew of rather repetative topics will just melt away

I do agree with Jason though. Whatever two people agree to... fine by me. Which is why I don't understand why there has to be so much discussion, and discourse, about this issue. CM is a game and it can be bent and twisted, either in a good way or a bad one. Depends on what type of player you are and what you are after. Jason has suggested some different ways of playing, and I for one don't see why their needs to be a strong movement to promote it, or to say it is crap. Each to his own, even in CMBB since Rarity will be optional

Steve