Historical Availability of the Puma

[Pvt.Tom]

I just received the Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two today and was shocked to see that only 101 Pumas were ever made, I had no idea it was so low! I see them in 75% of the QBs I play yet it was rarer than the Jagdpanther. The Puma must be the most over used vehicle in CM when compared to it's historical availability. Do most of you find it is used a lot? Also, what other units are over used compaired to historical availability?

P.S. I don't care about the whole what is gamey debate, I just like to pick my units along more historical lines when possible, whatever you want to pick is cool with me.

Pvt.Tom

[Forever Babra]

I look at QBs as a sort of fantasy scenario, so the proliferation of rare vehicles doesn't bother me overmuch. More thoroughly researched canned scenarios are more fun to play though.

[Loki]

I think it is the most over used unit in CM too. But people know the name so they pick it, but what ever people want to use to cool to me as long as I don't face 10 m26's.

[Guest Rob/1]

But they were made only from March 1943 to May 1945 so why would there be more?

[Slapdragon]

There are several rare to really rare units that can be over bought, like Sherman Crocs, but of the game really used rarity factors then the German player would often be without any armour when defending against the Allies, or would face swarms of M4s, M7s, and M10s. I like the idea of historical unit distribution, but someone (like us grogs) needs to build a series of availability curves like ASL used to have and then just privately agree to stick with the curves.

[109 Gustav]

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

I like the idea of historical unit distribution, but someone (like us grogs) needs to build a series of availability curves like ASL used to have and then just privately agree to stick with the curves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surprised it hasn't been mentioned in this thread already, but CM 2 will have a historical option for QBs. For example, Tiger Is will cost more in late 1945 because production halted sometime in 1944, I think. {Does some grog know when? I really dont.}

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

Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.

But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.

And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.

-Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska

[Guest MantaRay]

Now I have an excuse to why I dont buy Puma's. *Rather have me a tank than an underfed feline*

Ray

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

When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one."

Click now for shelter from the Peng thread

The Red Army of the Rugged Defense Group Ladder

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

There are several rare to really rare units that can be over bought, like Sherman Crocs, but of the game really used rarity factors then the German player would often be without any armour when defending against the Allies, or would face swarms of M4s, M7s, and M10s. I like the idea of historical unit distribution, but someone (like us grogs) needs to build a series of availability curves like ASL used to have and then just privately agree to stick with the curves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not just have historical TO&E for company and battalion-sized forces that can be purchased as an option? Retain the point system and have a variety of vehicles/heavy weapons that can be added to create flexible yet historically accurate battlegroups. Nobody would *have* to use this method of choosing units (the old system would still be there), but it would be available to those players who wanted a reasonably historical OoB. You could even have a slider and a button that would allow you to have a user-defined amount of pre-battle attrition.

Michael

[Major Tom]

Personally, I don't agree with limiting a vehicles rarity by increasing its point value. BTS designed the point values to represent the vehicle's actual ability or qualities, not its availability.

So, when you purchase a Tiger I tank in CM2, what actually happens is that it limits your force size, not necessarily representative of the rarity of a Tiger I tank.

Lets say that the Germans have an equivalent tank to the Tiger I, down to EVERY aspect (so it equals points) called the Feline I. Here's what would happen...

You could purchase

KG 1 500 Total points

1x Feline I

3x Platoons of Motorized Infantry

OR

KG 2 500 Total points

1x Tiger I

2x Platoons of Motorized Infantry

Increasing the point value for rare vehicles will only serve to skew the entire point system. Each KG costs 500 points, but, KG 2 is much weaker than KG 1. It won't limit the number of tigers, but, will limit the size of the force engaging in battle. Every time you purchase a Tiger I, you are fully aware that your force quality is actually much worse than if you would have purchased another AFV or unit with the points provided. Increasing Tiger I point values will not serve to represent its limited production, but, serve to show some unhistorical action that every unit that fought with Tiger I tanks was smaller than those without them.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Personally, I don't agree with limiting a vehicles rarity by increasing its point value. BTS designed the point values to represent the vehicle's actual ability or qualities, not its availability.

Increasing the point value for rare vehicles will only serve to skew the entire point system. Each KG costs 500 points, but, KG 2 is much weaker than KG 1. It won't limit the number of tigers, but, will limit the size of the force engaging in battle. Every time you purchase a Tiger I, you are fully aware that your force quality is actually much worse than if you would have purchased another AFV or unit with the points provided. Increasing Tiger I point values will not serve to represent its limited production, but, serve to show some unhistorical action that every unit that fought with Tiger I tanks was smaller than those without them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. I don't think the point value should be altered due to rarity. But there should be some subsidiary means to purchase units so that (upon players adopting it for a game) units appear in roughly the proportion that they would have been expected to do in real life.

Michael

[Major Tom]

On thing that was used in a few tabletop games was a 'rarity roll'. BTS could do something a little more complicated than this. In some games in order to determine the number of certain rare units that one could purchase for their army they would roll a six sided dice, and whatever number appeared they could buy a maximum of. CM2 could have a more 'refined' way of measuring this, related to battle point allocation, and year of engagement.

Whenever a QB is being set up, the German player would be shown the maximum numbers of Tiger I tanks they could purchase. Possibly it could be 4, or maybe 0, depends on the time of year, battle points rating (smaller battles would have an even less chance of a Tiger appearing) as well as some random chance.

This would probably limit the number of Tiger I tanks used better than increasing its point value. It wouldn't mess with the already good system of point allocation.

[Loki]

I would like to see historicly accuate units on the field as well, but not at the expense of play balance.I can see both sides of increasing the cost based on rarity.

By increasing the cost say 25 %, you won't face an army of Pershings.You wouldn't have just Panthers and Tigers. The scenario designer would still have the ultimate say in what they include in a scenario and could balance it with testing.

The down side would be for QB's with players who don't know what other units may be of equal quality, or when 2 foes agree to do fantasy scenario's with dozens of rare units.

I guess the best opion would be to include an "option" to stick to historical availability. If you enable this option and buy a rare unit, then you should pay more for it.

Thats my 2 cents worth.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Yeah, something along those lines (Maj. T.'s last post) wouldn't be too bad.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 01-08-2001).]

[Loki]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Whenever a QB is being set up, the German player would be shown the maximum numbers of Tiger I tanks they could purchase. Possibly it could be 4, or maybe 0, depends on the time of year, battle points rating (smaller battles would have an even less chance of a Tiger appearing) as well as some random chance.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You beat me to the post Tom.Had I read your idea prior to mine I would have agree'd on this fully. Hopefully BTS will consider this.Even though I would stick to history I would still like it to be optional.Less whining from players that way.

[Guest AbnAirCav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav:

For example, Tiger Is will cost more in late 1945 because production halted sometime in 1944, I think. {Does some grog know when? I really dont.}<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

August, 1944. Jentz & Doyle list the last six accepted in August (64 in July), the final chassis number 251346. They state that the final batch of 54 contracted for with the Henschel plant were produced mainly by recycling armor components from Tigers that had been too extensively damaged for repairs at the front and returned to Germany for major overhaul.

FWIW, I prefer a more "historical" flavor in my games and would prefer such options. The 'rarity roll' sounds like a good option to add in addition to other "historical" options.

[Major Tom]

There is a problem of abuse though. If the German player starts the QB, they can just keep on starting scenarios until they get a favourable number of Tiger I tanks appearing in their inventory. Yet, many things in starting a QB rely on trust of your PBEM opponent, so, this wouldn't be a "critical" problem to the game.

[John Hough]

Probably the best way (for the end effect) to do rarity would be to have some sort of economic model for purchasing units. Say, you'd have a pool of a certain number of units, based on unit rarity and the number of copies sold. (or, more likely, number of people registered on their rarity server) People would purchase units out of that pool somehow, for the point value they'd be willing to pay for the unit in a qb.

Unit prices should fairly quickly get set to values based on some function of the units' percieved value and the rarity, but rarity should never cause the point values to go high enough that it'd cripple your force to buy the overpriced unit. Further, you only have enough units around for all the games played through the rarity server to have units show up in something resembling their historical proportions.

Pain in the arse to implement, though, I'm sure.

-John

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

sometimes i'd like to kick your f-ing head

but i guess you're just a human too

-EMBRACE, "SAID GUN"

[Guest Big Time Software]

Guys,

First of all, remember that the Rarity system will be OPTIONAL. Key word in the previous sentence is "optional". Those of you who have been here for a while will remember that people FREAKED when they thought this system would not be OPTIONAL, even though I used the word OPTIONAL in every single post. So people, please remember that this system will be OPTIONAL

Skewing the points is the best way to affect reduced use of certain units. Major Tom listed an example, but I don't think it is a good illustration of the system. He assumed the point increases would be rather small. On the contrary, they should not be.

Let me invent a example for discussion to show you how it *might* work using a PzIV J, Panther G (late), and Tiger E (late)...

BASE COST (as is now, based on inherent capabilities)

PzIV - 122

Panther - 191

Tiger - 173

For June of 1944 (Western Front) the costs might look like this:

PzIV - 122

Panther - 382

Tiger - 1073

This is based on a quick source I consluted that showed the basic tank force to be roughly 2x more likely to have a PzIV than a Panther and 10x more likely to have a PzIV than a Tiger. We would not use exactly this method, but something similar using a particular baseline standard and multiplying all vehicles (and all other units to their own standards).

Now... Major Tom, for a 500 point battle, which vehicle would you take? Tiger is rulled out completely, and you would be a fool to take a Panther. And if you did, you would only get one. So this system, without modification, will neatly eliminate less common vehicles from the majority of games. Even 1000 point games would most likely see PzIVs than Panthers, and still not Tigers.

OK, before you say "NO TIGERS" , there will be more to this system than just a straight multiplier. Like some have mentioned above, there will be a "roll" that will vary the modifiers a little bit. It might allow the player to buy a Tiger for 300 points for a particular battle instead of 1073. Now for a 500 point battle, this still probably rules it out (in this case), but if you were playing a 1500 point battle it might be doable. Who knows. It is as much up to the player as it is up to CM's system.

And people... don't worry about restarting stuff to get a better "roll". We'll make sure this is not possible to do. Rather easy, actually. Just have the second player get to purchase his units BEFORE the first player sees the purchase list. If there are other security holes, we'll patch 'em up as well.

Thanks,

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Major Tom suggested the following:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In some games in order to determine the number of certain rare units that one could purchase for their army they would roll a six sided dice, and whatever number appeared they could buy a maximum of. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This doesn't work for CM's scale. Since we are talking about only 1-5 main AFVs in the average QB, having some sort of available "pool" still invites ahistorical purchase. For example:

BASE COST (as is now, based on inherent capabilities)

PzIV - 122

Panther - 191

Tiger - 173

OK, so you are playing your 500pt battle. The game decides that the German side has the following available in its pool (according to the same 1:2:10 ratio used in previous post):

Pz IV - 10

Panther - 5

Tiger - 1

OK, so even for a 500pt battle the player could, in theory, still purchase a Tiger and a PzIV or two Panthers.

This is not to say that Major Tom's proposed system couldn't be made to work, but in the end it would likely wind up producing similar results as our system. However, making a point cost based system should be easier to do, test, and tweak. And since it will likely produce the same end results, it is the best choice to pursue.

Remember... if someone manages to buy something like a 1073 point Tiger, it will likely come at the expense of perhpas 4 or 5 other significant AFVs. I don't know about you folks, but I would much rather have 4 or 5 PzIVs than one Tiger. Or especially 2 or 3 Panthers than one Tiger, since the Panther is (in many ways) superior to it.

Oh, and of course the Rarity modifiers will be based on the selected month of the game. So a Panther might cost the same as a PzIV towards the end of the war, but a Tiger might cost 20 times as much as either.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-08-2001).]

[Forever Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally Posted by BTS

Those of you who have been here for a while will remember that people FREAKED when they thought this system would not be OPTIONAL, even though I used the word OPTIONAL in every single post...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Babs is freakin' out!

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

Is "patheti-sad" a word?

[Guest MantaRay]

Won't this make the US far more of a force though?

Not just in limiting what a German player can buy, but won't the rarity factor also reduce the price for the US Tanks as well?

I mean in a 500 point battle, a Sherman would have to be less than half of what it is now to compensate for the price of the PzIV?

I favor maybe limiting how many tanks can be bought at a certain stage in the war. Don't know about screwing around and complicating the price though. Works great now, why fix it?

Ray

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

When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one."

Click now for shelter from the Peng thread

The Red Army of the Rugged Defense Group Ladder

[Guest KwazyDog]

"Won't this make the US far more of a force though?"

No, becuase its not a feature going into CM1

Force balancing would still be very important to maintain with this system. Quick battles assume that the forces are on an equal standing. If they arent, then there is really no point to them...

Dan

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 01-08-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

bump

[Mace]

anti-noise bumb

[Guest AbnAirCav]

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

First of all, remember that the Rarity system will be OPTIONAL. Key word in the previous sentence is "optional".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, I'm looking forward to it, but definitely want it to be optional. FWIW, I would prefer more than one option, giving us a choice between rarity/historical options. Possibly one with rarity point values and a different option using a 'rarity roll' ... is there a possibility of having more than one rarity/historical option, or is having more than one too far down on the feature list?

(BTW, I was watching "Rear Window" on AMC last night, too, love that movie!)