SMG thread annex

[JasonC]

Well, I am not Jeff, certainly. And I never told Slapdragon to "shut up", as Steve would have it. I merely pointed out that indifference is not a reason to use one player-set setting rather than another, when a potential opponent has a preference in the matter.

Player set items are not the same as BTS programming changes. It is perfectly reasonable for BTS to avoid making any changes unless they see a strong need for them, since it involves their time, the stability of code, one size must generally fit all (with some room for varied settings of course).

But which type of infantry players choose, and what unit details scenario designers tweak, are not in the same category - the things used are not scarce, and accomodating agreement between the players (or between scenario designer and the player who chooses to play that scenario) is the thing needed.

Indifference may be an argument against changes in the first category, but it doesn't present much of an argument in the second sort of case. "No, we can't do it your way, because I don't care one way or the other", is not much of an argument, directed at a gaming partner.

I thought that Slapdragon rather overlooked this distinction, but I took him at his word that he does not think infantry type choices and modest ammo tweaks matter much, one way or the other. That's fine by me, and if everyone is as accomodating in practice, that's all I can ask for. Doubtless he will use default settings and any infantry types when playing people who think as he does, simply out of convenience. But if he is indifferent in the matter, there isn't any reason he can't humor players that prefer the tweaks, when he plays them.

In general, I agree with Steve's last post - the point is, indeed, that there are several ways to play CM. I would quibble about the comment that there is no need to promote alternatives, simply because people need to know about and to understand a proposal to use it - but I do find the strindency of opposition I've sometimes seem, rather silly.

The absurd length the subject has gone, I put down to several parts, some more reasonable than others - hashing out decent proposals, discussing points of realism and game experiences, making proposals workable with what we've got - plus a fair amount of denial the issue exists, and opposition to any alternatives to the default settings and free for all unit choices.

I find the last of those unreasonable for several reasons. One, because we are talking about player settings, exactly Steve's "whatever two people do". And two, because I find in practice that some people already make de facto stipulations about subjects like infantry types, often in a vague manner, with plenty of room for misunderstanding etc. And three because the previous basically arose from widespread player experience (which fits my own), by tests, and by analysis - so I find arguments no issue exists unconvincing.

Somebody else might, but that then just defaults to the first. Play people who think that way, if you like, or if you really think it doesn't matter then just accomodate your opponent's preferences. That part all seems obvious enough to me.

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Slapdragon]

JasonC,

The reason you shot yourself in the foot was you came out and said, "Give us your opinion and your tests" when what you wanted to say was, "give us your opinions and tests but if you find something different than me please don't give your opinions and tests because they are unwanted."

Steve was addressing Jeff because Jeff thinks anyone who agrees with the game in any form is a sycophant. The quality of your argument was pointed out by Lewis and his response: the best he could do was make fun of someone's picture on tehir web page, which is what he does when he has no useful commentary.

Asking for tests and commentary is an excellent way of building the game, and you sounded reasonable when you asked for it, but if you want to have a thread where you post an idea and everyone slavishly agrees with it and all opposite opinion is banned, then perhaps a thread on this server is not useful to your argument purposes/

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Jeff

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did I say a word about SlapDragon, or people expressing their honest opinions?

Oh, I didn't? That is what I thought.

Jeff

[Jeff Heidman]

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

JasonC,

Steve was addressing Jeff because Jeff thinks anyone who agrees with the game in any form is a sycophant. The quality of your argument was pointed out by Lewis and his response: the best he could do was make fun of someone's picture on tehir web page, which is what he does when he has no useful commentary./<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Jeff thinks that those who are unwilling to take anyone who has a criticism at face value are sycophants. If Jeff thinks "anyone who agrees with the game in any form" was a sycophant, that would not be auseful distinction, since EVERYONE agrees with it in some form or another, and Jeff agrees with it in almost all forms.

But, as usual, Slappy is trying to marginalize those who do not agree with him, and construct nice little strawmen for his opponents and refuse to let them speak for themselves.

The funny thing is, I was not even remarking about Slappy in this case, but those who refuse to respond to Jason meaningfully, and instead decided to act like 6 year olds. Personally, I thought Slappy response was pretty fair, and I am rather wondering where him and Steve pulled out this crap about Jason "banning" contrarian opinions. Could one of you explain that to me?

I gotta hand it you guys though, your system is working, and you execute it with precision. Jason is just the latest in a long line of targets.

Jeff

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dorosh Said: 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have excerpts from a WWII Soviet Combat Engineer (sappers) manual. It has several tables indicating construction essentials for all sorts of entrenchments from a rifle pit up through gun pit for a 76.2mm field gun. Excavations quantities and time to construct are all indicated (it assumes no lend-lease beavers were available). Anyway, if this is of interest to you I can post some of this techno-minutia.

ASL I must admit that was a funny read. However I don’t think Jason is quite as puffed up with himself as your post implies…just my opinion.

[argie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

I have excerpts from a WWII Soviet Combat Engineer (sappers) manual. It has several tables indicating construction essentials for all sorts of entrenchments from a rifle pit up through gun pit for a 76.2mm field gun. Excavations quantities and time to construct are all indicated (it assumes no lend-lease beavers were available). Anyway, if this is of interest to you I can post some of this techno-minutia.

ASL I must admit that was a funny read. However I don’t think Jason is quite as puffed up with himself as your post implies…just my opinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please, please, please, Jeff... Post ALL that techno minutia!!!

If is too complicated to post, then mail it to me, please, please, please

Thanks.

[Username]

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

The quality of your argument was pointed out by Lewis and his response: the best he could do was make fun of someone's picture on tehir web page, which is what he does when he has no useful commentary.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Noooo. I stated that he felt a certain way and that I thought there are bigger issues.

The "guy" I made fun of, thats probably just a pic he took from a website, was an attempt to lighten up the serious thread; so get a bottle of reality elixer and take a couple of tablespoons.

Now the best I can do is reiterate my "reloading SMG" idea. I would like to see predominately SMG units start out with a small loadout, lets say 20. In the course of the game, they will get to LOW status. I would like the SMG units to have the ability to ratchet up from LOW to a maximum of lets say 10. This models nicely the shock troop nature of these gangster squads. Its sort of an abstraction of the weapon systems real world individual characteristics to a squad level representation.

Lewis

[PzKpfw 1]

Below is Soviet position construction manhour times with pioneer tools from the 1942 Inf regs:

Foxhole - 1.0 hours

2 man LMG pit - 2.0 hours

1 man sniper pit w/camo & overhead cover - 1.5 hours

1 metre of man deep trench - 1.0 hours

HMG pit, w/dug out for crew - 6.0 hours

ATR pit w/dugout for crew -6.0 hours

Horse pit - 8.5 hours

50mm mortar position - 4.6 hours w/camo - 5.0 hours w/overhead cover - 12.0 hours

82mm Mortar position w/camo, crew pit, amunition pits, - 32.0 hours. w/overhead crew cover added as well - 57.0 hours

120mm Mortar position, w/crew pit, ammo pit, & camo - 37.5 hours. w/overhead cover for crew & ammo 59.5 hours.

45mm AT gun position with 360^ feild of fire, crew & ammo pits - 56.0 hours (74.7 hours with entrenching tools only). W/ overhead cover for both crew & ammo - 75.6 hours.

76mm Cannon position w/ 100^ FOF, crew & ammo pits - 45.0 hours (60 hours with E tools only).W/overhead cover, for crew & ammo - 68.0 hours.

Basicly with pioneer tools, an Soviet Rifle Co would be completly dug in in around 12 hours. An entire Soviet Rifle Regt, + supt arms, dug in w/overhead cover, camo, etc in less then 12 hours.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[argie]

Thanks!

Finally I found something useful in one of this SMG threads

[PVLLVS MAXIMVS]

A> We could probably do without all the sarcastic cheap shots. The idea is to discuss, not be jerkoffs to each other.

B> I was going to pretty much say exactly what Steve said in his last post, but he beat me too it. So I'll just say "hell ya" to his point. The best one (IMO) made in this thread so far.

[JasonC]

I am afraid I don't understand Slap's last much at all. He still seems to think his indifference one way or another on the suggested proposals, as a result of his tests, is somehow unwelcome to me. If the most anyone has against my proposals is indifference one way or another, that's great as far as I am concerned. Then I've got an "I like it", and an "I don't care" as tester feedback.

Just why Slapdragon thinks his personal indifference on a subject is of more general interest than that, remains something of a mystery. Surely he doesn't think that if he doesn't care about a setting one way or another, that implies none may? Or does he think his mere indifference should outweigh an opponent's stated preferences? On any proposal, e.g. Fionn's 75, or no SMG hordes, rather than mine, if he likes. If one player says "I don't care", isn't that the same in practice as "up to you"?

[WWB]

JC,

I think the problem was with the tone of your reply, which read to me as "Well, you don't agree with me, so your reply does not matter."

I think he was trying to open an honest and clean debate, which is unfortunately precluded now. There was a statement of fact followed by conclusions from said fact.

Personally, I think the ammo-loadout workaround is a fine idea, and a good way to balance these things a bit better while awaiting the improved version. Of course, you have to do it in scenario design which tends to avoid the SMG-horde type force compositions anyways. Moreover, setting such ammo levels for anything but the smalles scenarios will be painful at best under the current system (hint, hint BTS).

WWB

[JasonC]

I thank wwb for his comments. He advised me about tone, thus "the problem was with the tone of your reply, which read to me as "Well, you don't agree with me, so your reply does not matter". I can understand that reading, but what I actually said was "you agree with me enough for my purposes", and "pocketed" it as friendly, in practice. I took Slap to be saying, in effect, "I looked and it doesn't seem to matter either way", and the intent of my reply was "fine by me".

Perhaps Slap did not expect indifference to be welcome. Perhaps he was thinking of the sorts of things BTS has to change, where absence of a strong compelling reason for a change means don't touch it. Perhaps he didn't notice that indifference on his part will mean in practice his opponent deciding whether to use this setting or that, rather than settling the matter. Perhaps he flattered himself that his enthusiastic desire for a setting is a moral requirement for others using it.

That is as may be. The fact of the matter is, whether he was trying to disagree with my proposals or not, he did not manage to. "Whatever you like" is not an argument against a particular player-set choice.

So I welcomed his conclusion. In fact, I take it as evidence I haven't gone overboard in my suggested tweaks - he didn't see an impact so large as to be imbalancing the other way.

Of course I do think the difference between 30-35 and 45-50 shots matters, or I wouldn't have proposed it. But I certainly don't want a change so large that rifles clearly rule. I will go over the ground again, to give some idea of the mass of "objections" already presented, and how little has come of them.

The whole subject began with the observation that SMGs are more effective than rifles but cost the same (both in CM, obviously). This was disputed by some for a while, and a valid case was made that automatic infantry in general (including 2 LMG types with many autos) can sometimes be better still - but basically the superiority of automatics was admitted. So I suggested raising their CM price.

BTS stated that the reason the two cost the same was that both were supposed to be about equally useful, just at different things, and cited the fact that armies made plentiful use of rifles. Price tweaks were not as welcome. BTS stated that they prefer to correct any underlying modeling issues, rather than repricing things, and that is a sensible position. The prices are the same, and BTS says that is because they expected their effectiveness to be similar, though good at different things. So the question became, how can rifles and SMGs be more balanced in game effects and realistically so?

Which led to my ammo and firepower analysis, discussion of loads carried, relative accuracies, implied accuracies in existing fp numbers and (even) ammo allowances, fp per unit time (related to suppression also) vs. fp over ammo load, etc. The basic idea is that SMGs dish out more firepower per unit time, but rifles dish out more firepower per bullet fired.

SMGs will do more per shot at any reasonable range for them (~100 yards, like now). If the range is low enough for the accuracy difference to be small, the SMG will do more over the whole of its ammo load too, because of the larger ammo loads carried. But once the rifle's accuracy is higher by more than the size of the ammo load difference, the rifle - while still behind in fp per unit time - will catch up in fp over the whole ammo load.

The ammo tweak proposals were meant to accomplish that. They will tend to leave SMGs better at suppression even at 100 yards, but at that range the total damage an SMG can do before running low on ammo would be less than a rifle could do. At closer range - 40-70 yards - the SMG would remain better in all respects, of course.

In addition, the added ammo for rifles should make it more feasible for them to use their superior range, with shots in the 100-250 yard window. Which can be rather dicey with things as they are now, with 40 shots for all squad types, because it means less ammo for the rifle squads in close. The shots used up at such distances get 3-7 fp per rifle, while SMGs are saving their shots for 9-45 fp numbers at closer range. With ~10-15 extra shots per squad, rifle-heavy squads should be able to afford such long range fire. My testing seemed to bear this out.

Now, it is worth while to record all the various positions along the way, of which Slapdragon's latest is just one example, that have alleged there isn't really any problem, but nevertheless have failed to make a case against the proposal in practice.

First some said SMGs suck because they never get in range, and rifles are better. One fellow said so under the mistaken impression that M-1 rifles had higher fp numbers than SMGs at 100 yards. Some compared 12 man squads with 8 man squads instead of equal points spent on each type. Many argued that 2 LMG squads are better than pure SMG, without pretending that 1 LMG rifle-armed squads are as good as either, for the same amount spent.

Some said that SMGs were cheap and easy to make, overlooking the fact that CM prices reflect combat effectiveness, not economic cost. Some said that larger squads are more effective for the same firepower because of their robustness, when in fact more shooters means some unsuppressed. Some claimed that support weapon differences made up for it all, overlooking the fact that German support weapons are as available and at least as effective for the price.

Some suggested that SMGs were only good at close assault, and that paras and engineers were the doctrinal counter - but paras and engineers lose to SMGs in close, and SMGs are useful defensively and offensively, out to 100 yards, using reverse slopes, etc. While at longer ranges support weapons provide much of the fp, not squads, and squads face problems from ammo and from artillery zeroing in on them, if trying to fire at long ranges for long enough to do anything. 2 LMG automatic infantry (especially on attack), or a mix of SMG-heavy squads and HMGs for long ranged fire (especially on defense), are superior to rifle-armed squads for the same points spent.

Some then argued that the superior performance of automatic weapon infantry was justified - but failed to notice that in that case, the point costs were not, since those are supposed to reflect only combat effectiveness and are the same for a rifleman or an SMGer. Some regarded the superiority of automatics as obvious, and thought the Germans had more of them. When in fact the Allies made far more and were often above TOE in automatics, while German units were often below it - something documented here for Brits with Stens and Fallschirmjaegers with LMGs, as examples.

It is quite possible the Germans made far more front line use of them than the Allies, despite having fewer overall, of course. But that supposition fits with BTS's statement that rifles and SMGs had comparable effectiveness at different tasks, not with the idea that SMGs were dramatically more effective. Because, in the latter case, the more numerous Allied SMGs ought to have migrated to the front. Otherwise we are left to suppose that thousands of military professionals with their lives at stake, failed to notice what every green CMer manages to figure out by the end of his second or third outing in "A Chance Encounter".

Then some got into the nitty gritty of the numbers and alleged that the exactly equal shots per squad were justified by the differences in ammo weights, and thus in rounds carried per man. But no one alleged SMGers carried more than 2.5 times as many bullets per man, and SMGs get well more than 2.5 times the fp at close range. The fp of each bullet (not burst, and not rate of fire) out of an SMG is therefore higher than one out of a rifle, which is silly.

Some thought it might not be silly because part of the effect of fire is suppression, not hits. But in CM, suppression is greater for the same fp already, when that fp is delivered faster, because morale recovery from shots is time dependent. So there is no need to over-inflate fp over whole ammo load to model suppression. Higher fp per unit time already models better suppression, leaving fp over whole ammo load to reflect actual accuracy, and thus casualties.

Some alleged that the problem was not SMGs, but rush behavior. There are issues with rush behavior and BTS is improving it, certainly. But the SMG edge is there on defense, and when attacking slowly by fire and movement through covered areas, not just in rushes, so it is a different phenomenon. Then some suggested the issue was SMG infantry scarcity and their overuse. It may well be that a scarcity system will alievate or mitigate the problem, but there isn't one for CMBO now.

Many have advanced all of the above arguments without trying the proposals. A few to their credit have, and have expressed favor and indifference, respectively.

Some suggested ad hoc "solutions" like banning SMG hordes, limiting the number of SMG platoons to 3 per battle (without reference to battle size), not playing people who use them, requiring purchases by company. These either remove an interesting infantry type from the game or fail to address the problem, and they are subject to all sorts of misunderstandings. How various infantry types are categorized is not made clear - e.g. is a GB squad an "SMG squad" (2 rifles)? What about an FJ one (3 rifles)?

Through it all, many have maintained loudly that no issue exists. This can have two meanings - that the proposed solutions are unwarranted and would be unbalancing, or that the proposed solutions are irrelevant without making any unbalancing difference. These two, which may seem similar to their proponents, in fact have very different conclusions for practice.

If there is no issue but the changes also make no difference, then there is no principled reason to oppose the wishes of an opponent who happens to think there is an issue. Whether you think the latter is right or wrong. If there is an issue but the proposed changes make no difference, the result is the same - no reason not to use them when an opponent wants them. If there is an issue and the proposed changes help, then there is positive reason to use them.

The only cases in which the tweaks would be truly unwarranted, are (1) if there is indeed an issue but the proposals are too big a swing in the other direction, making SMGs debilitated and rifles omnipotent. No one, as of yet, has even alleged this. And I have deliberately kept the changes moderate - 30-50 range for ammo, not 20-60 e.g. - to avoid this possible pitfall. And (2), if there is at present no issue, and the proposed changes make a serious balance difference, naturally one in favor of rifles. No one has yet alleged this either, directly and as a whole, though some have tried to leave it as an implicit conclusion to be drawn.

There are two problems faced by those who would argue either (1) or (2) above. First off, the scale of effects that must supposedly matter, have to be larger than the obvious and well-known effects of SMGs (or automatic infantry generally) today. In the first case, the ammo changes have to outweigh whatever edge autos now provide and move the result about as far off "balanced" in the other direction. But the proposed ammo changes are only +/- 25% to the default number.

No argument that changes on that scale do *not* matter, will suffice. Nor will any argument work that allows some moderate effect to SMG vs. rifle differences, but regards these as not large enough to matter for game balance. One would have to argue both that changes on the scale of the ammo tweaks *do* matter, and that effects on that scale do not already exist in favor of automatics. This is a rather narrow rope to walk. One practically has to allege that SMGs are undermodeled in CM effectiveness and too expensive as it is, at equal prices to rifles.

The second problem with either (1) or (2) is that a real disagreement about balance issues of the character required, will in practice be met by the "you cut, I choose" nature of the implimentation. If someone honestly thinks that rifles with 45 shots cannot possibly lose to automatics with 35, then all he has to do is pick his side and take rifles. If someone honestly thinks that the balance is perfect at 40 shots for all squads, all he has to do is give his opponent choice of side, and with it choice of squad type.

Any honest belief about balance issues will fit into the proposal. Different opinions on the subject will, indeed, lead to different choices - of side, of infantry type, and whether to use the tweaks or not. But no honest belief on the subject of balance is harmed by the option or the scheme of choices.

The only "position" that is "harmed" by the proposal is one talking up the effectiveness of what someone does not intend to take, and talking down the effectiveness of what one does intend to take. If someone wants high automatics with 40 shots per squad, and wants his opponent to have rifles with 40 shots per squad, *because* he thinks it will give him an edge, then indeed the scheme may seem inconvenient.

That option will be available only if one's opponent agrees that is a balanced fight. If he does, it is still available. To desire it even if one's opponent does not regard it as balanced, is consciously to seek an advantage both sides understand is an advantage, rather than balanced. Some may be in this position, of course, but it is not publically defensible. It simply leads to bids for side, or to vetos of the "no SMG hordes" variety, to ban what both understand is an edge.

I think I have listened to every single objection registered to my SMG proposals, over months now. Which have changed and I think have improved as a result of the feedback, from unsubtle proposed "centralized" price changes initially, to the present voluntary ammo tweak scheme with its "you cut, I choose" implimentation. I don't think a single significant objection has gone unaddressed. And at present, I do not hear anyone saying the proposal, upon testing, seems ruinous. Nor do I hear any argument how anyone honestly objecting to the balance struck will be harmed by a "you cut, I choose" implimentation of it. He simply exercises his choices under that scheme one way rather than another.

If anyone has anything new in any of the above, or sees an injured party somewhere I've overlooked, or any other reason the scheme of offers and choices must be avoided like a pestilence, fire away. Expect me to defend my proposals - I don't require your endorsement to think them sound, you know, nor to use them - but I will certainly listen. I frankly doubt the opposition has anything reasonable left, and I make no secret of that. But if you think that isn't so, take your shot.

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Slapdragon]

JC,

You need to reread my post. I said I tested the work around you proposed, it did not cause an effect. That is a test with a result from a test, not a so so result. In other words, if someone said to me we should hobble SMG ammo, I would say for regular length games the "fix" to the "problem" is hardly worth all of the effort, except in so far as a sugar pill is a good cure for a paper cut. The problem of course, is a paper cut. The cure, of course, was not found in testing by me to be worth the hassle.

However, you are still insisting on reading this and assuming some sort of ulterior motive. Great. You need to make sure that your topics include a warning -- "serious discussion not wanted". Then you can have a nice circle jerk over the issue with no rain at all.

You posted a request. I tested it after discussion in depth in a more serious forum. I told you what I found. You ignored it for what ever reason you ignored it and asked only for opinions that agree with you. Well and good. No need to beat it into the ground, but these difficulties would be avoided if you just posted that you only wanted concurring opinions in the first place.

[JasonC]

No Slap, you see I don't need your concurrence. Your indifference is quite sufficient. No matter how many times or ways you say it, your indifference does not amount to opposition. If your opponent wants sugar pills, you won't object because they are just sugar pills, and that is quite honestly all I request.

You see, I deliberately left room for differences of opinion on balance issues. I don't require people to agree with me about balance issues, and I am not on any campaign for them to do so. Under "you cut, I choose", differences of opinion about balance are not banned but expected, and indifference is simply one way of reacting to the choices that offers. You would presumably pick side or rule-set based on your convienence or your other whims, like which side you'd like ot play in a given game. Which is just fine. It isn't any skin off your nose.

And that is what I am aiming at. Not universal agreement on balance issues, but a scheme for balancing sides and choices that does not skin any honest person's nose, whatever his balance opinions happen to be. You assure me, on examination, that the ammo tweaks would not skin your nose, and I take you at your word, and count it lemonade.

[Battlefront.com]

Jeff,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, Jeff thinks that those who are unwilling to take anyone who has a criticism at face value are sycophants.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, so you too are a sycophant In your case you have SUCH an axe to grind about this issue it has made you go out of your way to look for it and then to comment upon it when you think you have found it. Even if it means not being able to see where the comments are really coming from. Contrary to what you might think, the comments on the previous page had to do with Jason's perceived attitude, not that he aggrees/disagrees with the game. But I guess you can't see that, so your line of argument therefore makes sense (to you at least).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But, as usual, Slappy is trying to marginalize those who do not agree with him, and construct nice little strawmen for his opponents and refuse to let them speak for themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah... Slappy answered the question and was told his answer "didn't matter". Who was "marginalized"? Yes, I know Jason you have clarified your position in subsequent posts, but it was a poor choice of words at the very least.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The funny thing is, I was not even remarking about Slappy in this case, but those who refuse to respond to Jason meaningfully, and instead decided to act like 6 year olds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, but you didn't even care to figure out why they were acting like a bunch of "6 year olds". Some didn't appreciate Jason's tone, not what he was proposing. I have also found Jason's tone to sometimes be rather condecending (and have said so at the time), but nothing like it was rather early on. So you can take the "6 year old" stuff out of context, that is your choice. But I reserve my right to critize you for being selective in your crusade to ridicule and attack anybody you think of as a sychophant, even if you are missing the real point.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Personally, I thought Slappy response was pretty fair, and I am rather wondering where him and Steve pulled out this crap about Jason "banning" contrarian opinions. Could one of you explain that to me?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think others have explained it just fine. Slappy and I aren't the only ones that read Jason's comments in a way you obviously did not. But whatever.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I gotta hand it you guys though, your system is working, and you execute it with precision.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why thank you. Since the forum continues to be a thriving place of discussion and idea exchanging (just added a user suggestion from yesterday to "The List"), I agree that we are doing things just fine. So very nice to see that you think so too. Oh wait... you didn't mean that, did you? I should have guessed since you have held this position and tone for about a year or so now (yet are still here for some reason) so I guess it would be a little tough to imagine you changing your tune.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jason is just the latest in a long line of targets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... good old Jeff. Well, at least I don't go bad mouthing people, by name, on other forums.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Once again... I don't give a flying fig what any two people decide to use for outside game parameters. Two players could decide to only use tanks, in wide open terrain, with Fog of War off and I wouldn't say anything negative towards them. If we wanted people to play the game only OUR way, then we wouldn't have put in a slew of options, would we?

As to the whole discussion about SMGs in general, this has been addressed in CMBB (along with other behaviors that people don't seem so hung up on, but are actually the root cause of SMG problems). However, we did this without changing pricing or firepower structure. As I said before, we decided to go for the root causes of SMG overuse/overeffectiveness. Rarity, new move orders, and better MG simulation takes care of that quite nicely

Steve

[Tero]

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

As to the whole discussion about SMGs in general, this has been addressed in CMBB (along with other behaviors that people don't seem so hung up on, but are actually the root cause of SMG problems). However, we did this without changing pricing or firepower structure. As I said before, we decided to go for the root causes of SMG overuse/overeffectiveness. Rarity, new move orders, and better MG simulation takes care of that quite nicely

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find this broobahah about the alledged overeffectiveness of the SMG superfluous.

IMO a SMG rush is no more gamey than any kind of rush. And while it is admittedly hard to beat back it is not impossible to beat it back. Even with the current set of assets and settings.

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The chief recipient of sycophantish behaviour wrote:

Sure, but you didn't even care to figure out why they were acting like a bunch of "6 year olds". Some didn't appreciate Jason's tone, not what he was proposing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tone, sheesh! Geez people shoulda been eternally grateful that his comment was concise even if sensitive souls could characterise it as terse. What would you rather read Jason being terse or Jason being Jason. I think you should be thankful for small mercies.

Personally I was glad he didn't embark on a interminable dissection of slappy's test. Just reading one of slappy's test posts is bad enough!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rarity, new move orders, and better MG simulation takes care of that quite nicely <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know about you, but "I'm excited!" (TM Big Kev)

[Slapdragon]

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

No Slap, you see I don't need your concurrence. Your indifference is quite sufficient. No matter how many times or ways you say it, your indifference does not amount to opposition. If your opponent wants sugar pills, you won't object because they are just sugar pills, and that is quite honestly all I request.

You see, I deliberately left room for differences of opinion on balance issues. I don't require people to agree with me about balance issues, and I am not on any campaign for them to do so. Under "you cut, I choose", differences of opinion about balance are not banned but expected, and indifference is simply one way of reacting to the choices that offers. You would presumably pick side or rule-set based on your convienence or your other whims, like which side you'd like ot play in a given game. Which is just fine. It isn't any skin off your nose.

And that is what I am aiming at. Not universal agreement on balance issues, but a scheme for balancing sides and choices that does not skin any honest person's nose, whatever his balance opinions happen to be. You assure me, on examination, that the ammo tweaks would not skin your nose, and I take you at your word, and count it lemonade.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Honestly, I agree with you here. The problem is not too great (reason: one Sherman in a game was able to turn back an SMG rush, as was a 105mm Arty round) and the solution (lower ammo) did not effect a game whan I removed these two factors, except when I did not choose to charge the SMG units, instead allowing them to plink on their own, in which case they eventually came up with a draw with the US because both sides where out of ammo.

I don't think I would use this solution because no historical document I have ever read ever had hundreds of German SMG units discarding ammo to make a fair fight with the US, but neither is there any support for the idea that US units loaded down with tommy guns and tossed their Garands (either in small unit histories or in unit war diaries -- and don't start the argument that everyone has to prove to you that it did not happen rather than you prove it did happen commonly, that is something you hear in Freshman history class, not in serious debate ). Certianly when units tossed their weapons it made it into unit histories (ie. marines who tossed their Reising and Hyde SMGs for Garands and Carbines) and no such body of evidence exists in Europe 1944-45.

This is all immaterial. While I would not play a game with this modification made for non historical purposes, it is a sugar pill, and effects no one but you and whoever you get to play you. I was just pointing out that if you wanted to solve a problem, you need to show a) a problem and that your solution changes anything. If the answer to a is the problem is like a will o wisp, you can only see it when you squint (and have drunk some of uncle Bob's shine) then changing ammo levels for your own games may very well be the perfect sugar pill solution. If you are really interested in getting a yes to answer b, then you would be interested in tests that showed little effect (or my tests which actually showed little effect except in certain special circumstances.)

As for Simon, I want to hear about his latest research for the cure to piles, or is it new methods of lyposuction he is studying? Inquiring minds want to know.

[argie]

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

I find this broobahah about the alledged overeffectiveness of the SMG superfluous.

IMO a SMG rush is no more gamey than any kind of rush. And while it is admittedly hard to beat back it is not impossible to beat it back. Even with the current set of assets and settings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't believe it! I (almost) agree with Tero in something!

[Tero]

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

I can't believe it! I (almost) agree with Tero in something! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Noooooooooo !!!!

What is the almost bit ? (Just to keep up the appearance of not agreeing)

[argie]

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

Noooooooooo !!!!

What is the almost bit ? (Just to keep up the appearance of not agreeing) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Almost

[Username]

I would wait till after the other inf FP fixes are in. Thats after CMBB is released. There will be plenty of SMG troops around (historically too) and issues will be more relevant.

[Ron]

No, I haven't tried your proposed changes, don't think it's warranted or necessary for a few reasons, but am interested in hearing the results of those that do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This was disputed by some for a while, and a valid case was made that automatic infantry in general (including 2 LMG types with many autos) can sometimes be better still.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has been my experience by far. For the Germans, the SS Motorized and FJ are deadly effective out to the 100-150m range; for the Allies, the US Rifle 45 pattern. One thing to remember in your analysis on SMG squads, any squad with automatic weapons has an increased rate of fire in the sub 40m range, usually 8-9 bursts/minute.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>SMGs will do more per shot at any reasonable range for them (~100 yards, like now). - SMGs are useful defensively and offensively, out to 100 yards,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm really don't know where you are getting that from. Pure SMG squads are useless at 100m and only come into their own at the 40m range. From experience playing or a 'sterile' test, SMG squads will cause zero to minimal casualties at 100m while US Rifle squads will eventually chew said SMG squads up at that range. SMG squads are only good at close assault.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...failed to notice what every green CMer manages to figure out by the end of his second or third outing in "A Chance Encounter".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol, I must be slow for I played that scenario more times than I care to count or remember. What I took from it is unless the VG can safely get into close range, their advantage in FP is negated, period.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If someone honestly thinks that the balance is perfect at 40 shots for all squads, all he has to do is give his opponent choice of side, and with it choice of squad type.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do and I do, it's never been a problem or a concern; the key has always been tactics and combined arms. That '40 shots' is good for one maybe two assaults, if things go well, then the squad is no longer useful. Off the top of my head, 35 shots for SMG squads won't hamper them too too much for what they are good at, however 45-50 shots for a US Rifle 45 squad, with 12 men, goes too far IMO. As an example I just finished a large battle - a VG Bn(Grn&Reg) and a SS Mot Bn(Reg&Vet), both slightly reduced, with armor support attacking(to exit) a US 45 Bn through heavily forested terrain. Should be 'ideal' for the Germans with their close range FP advantage, right? Well, the casualties were about 475 for the Axis versus about 500 for the US, with the last quarter of the game having the Germans(with Low ammo) trying to avoid any combat at all. Obviously there are other variables at play. The cost, in ammo and men, to eliminate a 12 man squad is high. I could well imagine the results with ammo tweaks, which is well and fine for a specific scenario design but not as a general rule.

Ron