Historical Availability of the Puma

[Jumbo]

Wow, I expect only the best from BTS, because they make it easy to be addicted to it. Thanks BTS.

Jumbo

[Talorc]

Steve,

If the Optional rarity system is implemented in that way, why would you ever choose a Tiger or similarly "rare" vehicle? (Heh, I know you said don't say "No Tigers") But I believe that even if the multiplier randomly changes there still would be no rare AFV's.

Theoretically, the base point values represent the combat ability of the unit concerned and this point value is relative to the other units in the game. (And IMHO they are fairly well balanced in CM1. I assume CM2 will be the same) If I have to pay extra to buy a Tiger (at a multiplier to base cost - even if this multiplier changes it is still MORE than base cost), I am not getting as much "bang for my buck" as if I had just bought a couple of PzIV's, at no multiplier (Or any other suitably common AFV - eg the StuG or T-34). Obviously the point of the rarity system is to place limits representative of the historical availability, but you still want to win right?

Personally, I think the system as outlined above could actually lead to underutilisation of the "rare" vehicles. Picking your forces will just become a min/max process, trying to get the most value for your points. Which will I think take the fun out of a historically limited game. Endless hordes of StuGs and PzIVs cold quickly get as boring as King Tiger vs Pershing slugfests. The point (in my opinion) of a historically limited game is to enhance your enjoyment of a QB by making you pick a force that is well balanced, but still along historical lines. Thus you get to play with the not so Uber toys (eg PzIVs), without fear your opponent is going to have 5 King Tigers (or JS IIs) running around. But I would still like the occasional Uber Panther!

Fortunately I have an alternative suggestion. (Might be a bit tricky to implement, I dunno Im not a coder guy)

First keep the same points = combat value system. This applies to all games. QB's are chosen with the existing force limits (eg 1000 pt battles). Now if you DONT want to historically limit your game, skip to end and choose your units/play like normal.

Next (if you want a historical game) have a completely SEPARATE (and OPTIONAL, that is OPTIONAL "rarity" points pool to spend. Each unit has its own separate "rarity" value. Probably you would base this upon multipliers of the base cost (But you need not - you could just make these up, so long as real rare AFV's just cost a bunch more than common ones). The multiplier for each AFV would change according to the time of the engagement. You could also have the random multiplier here. (So maybe you got lucky, and your cousin in the General Staff got your unit equipped with Panthers first).

OK now to implement a Historical QB you just set the number of "rarity" points available to spend to a multiple of the actual base points available. Want a real historical battle? Have the number of rarity points available = the number of base points available. For a bit "looser" (Historically speaking) engagement you could go for x2 points etc etc. (The multipliers will need playing with obviously)

Now when you are choosing your units you have to satisfy BOTH points limits - the base "combat effectiveness" limit AND the "rarity value" limit. This way when you play a (OPTIONAL, OPTIONAL!! historical Quick battle, both sides will have a roughly equal "combat value" (from the base points) and satisfy the rarity value. (Which has a slightly more random nature to it, due to the possibility of random individual Unit rarity costs. The randomness of the rarity pool doesnt matter so much though - each side had the SAME amount of combat points available)

Comments, suggestions anyone?

Talorc

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

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Guys,

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)...

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. Thanks,

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I'm not a fan of limiting players choices, I prefer a historical OOB but also like the fact I can buy what I want as well at times regardless of 'rarity'. Also when you say 'optional' I take it that means we can turn this off? etc.

Here is one problem I have with CM not modeling the Plt & Co system as all tanks get lumped together instead of considered by how they operated Ie, ther may be 2.5 times more PzKpfw IV's compared to Tiger's but no PzKpfw IV Abt isa the equal of an Tiger Abt etc.

We can make an Tiger Abt now by purchasing them but what happens after this rarity thingy gets implemented? as it's not the same anymore at the examples price we couldn't afford more then maybe 2 PzKpfw VI's. I also see ppl buying just the most economical forces; even over historical OOBs the cheaper the better will become SOP, which means BTS could save time by just omiting the 'rare' AFVs etc from the game and leaving the 'common' ones.

Now why does a Panther cost 302 in the above example considering that as of 10 June 1944 their were 758 PzKpfw IV, 655 PzKpfw V, & 102 PzKpfw VI on the Westren Front ...

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 01-08-2001).]

[Panther131]

wrong post.

[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-08-2001).]

[jshandorf]

<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.

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. BTS said that they would make the rarity of a viehicle random so that you would have unique and different TOEs. So in one battle you can get cheap Tigers but in another you can't. In no way would limit the quality of your force selection.

Jeff

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

I once killed a six pack just to watch it die.

[Hakko Ichiu]

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

(snip of description of optional "rarity points" pool)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suggested s.t. very similar in the original rarity thread, and I still believe this to be the most effective way to limit rare vehicles w/o eliminating them. After all, if a Tiger II is worth about twice as much as a Mk IVj, then one should be able to trade them off in one's force mix at a 2:1 ratio to the extent that any Tiger IIs are available. Anything else forces the purchaser to sacrifice combat effectiveness for rarity, thereby unbalancing his force mix versus his opponents.

Having a pool of points would enable players to "mix it up" a bit w/o going overboard in terms of historicity or sacrificing play balance.

Example: Suppose a KT is worth a notional 3 rarity points. The rarity factor in the game assigns 6 rarity points to the Axis player in a 2000 point QB. The Axis player is then limited to no more than 2 KTs, even though his total force budget would allow him to buy up to 8 of them.

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

Ethan

-----------

"We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." -- Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women's Studies, Bowling Green State University

[Major Tom]

Ok, I thought that for EVERY scenario after a certain date a Tiger I would cost significantly more than on the earlier dates. If it randomly occurs, then, it will be more 'accurate' to simulate rarity than if it always occured. That makes a lot more sense. So, one scenario your Tiger costs a lot, and another at the same time it doesn't.

But, if you do buy the Tiger I when it costs a lot, it isn't lowering the number of Tiger I's you can use, but, lowering the amount of extra points you could use for other units.

[109 Gustav]

Originally posted by AbnAirCav

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.

See, I knew that someone would know. I nominate AirCav for the official TreadHead Grognard of this thread.

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

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.

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would it be possible to use this system to modify the points for all units, not just on a historical basis? This would certainly be applicable in real life, where some tanks or infantry units are more avalible than others. For example, if you were really building a force to attack or defend a set of objectives, if you said "I want 3 Pz IVs, a Tiger I, and 2 companies of volksgrenadiers," the reply from your commander would probably be something like "Well, I can't get any Pz IVs, but regiment has a bunch of Pz IIIs and Vs you're welcome to. Our Tigers ran into a minefield yesterday, but there's two Elefants in reserve I'll give you. Oh, and we got another three Pak40s as replacements, and I haven't assigned them to a unit yet. Why don't you take them and give their crews a little experience?"

See what I mean? If you had units cost more or less at random, it would better simulate the local avalibility of units. In the above example, Pz IVs and Tiger Is would cost 50 points or so more than usual, and Pz IIIs and Panthers would cost less. Pak40s would cost significantly less than usual.

Does anyone else think this would be a good idea, again as an optional feature?

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

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 wwb_99]

But shouldn't there be some times when Tigers are cheap, given their historical use. Heavy Panzer Companies were not committed to battle lightly, and often in total (theoretically 13 or 17 at a time IIRC). So you should not ever see less than a platoon, and oftentimes see an entire company.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Talorc, your proposed system does the same exact thing as our "rolls" for price reduction. The only difference is that the player does not get to choose which rare vehicles he can purchase at a discount. For example...

In your system let us say the Germans get 6 Rarity Points. A King Tiger costs 2 and Jagdtiger 3. Let us assume that the player has enough points to buy pretty much anything that he wants, so he can have either 3 King Tigers or 2 Jagdtigers in addition to other units.

In our system the "roll" would determine which vehicles would be less rare for the game, and therefore receive a price discount. For a particular battle that might mean that a Jagdtiger might be affordable, but a King Tiger still out of reach. Or perahps a Puma, which is very rare but not massively powerfull, will now be roughly the same cost as a halftrack.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Personally, I think the system as outlined above could actually lead to underutilisation of the "rare" vehicles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. First of all, the list of "rare" vehicles is actually quite long, especially when you factor in the date. Using the Western Front as an example, a Sherman Easy Eight might be more expensive than a Panther A simply because at that point in time the Easy Eights were only just trickling into service, while the Panther A was at peak use.

So the vehicle prices (and other units) will change from month to month. What is hardly worth it in August might be cheap in November. What was cheap in August might be frightfully expensive in November. But all throughout this system there is the CHANCE that the prices will be lower, which means an otherwise expensive vehicle could make an appearence in any scenario.

John wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well I'm not a fan of limiting players choices,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why I painfully use the word OPTIONAL all the time. If Rarity is used it will not be because we are limiting players' choices, rather they are limiting their own of their own free will.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here is one problem I have with CM not modeling the Plt & Co system as all tanks get lumped together instead of considered by how they operated<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a totally seperate issue. Also remember that for most QBs nobody has enough points to buy even a full platoon of AFVs of any type. So think about scale when you think OBs as well. However, in CM there will be formal TO&E for vehicles as there is for infantry. For smaller battles this won't mean much, but for larger ones (especially non-QB scenarios) this will be significant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We can make an Tiger Abt now by purchasing them but what happens after this rarity thingy gets implemented?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the date and luck. If Tigers are considdered rare, then the chances of you purchasing even one are slim. But if you get a lucky "role" they might be afordable in quantity.

Remember, the person making a scenario in the Editor is not obligated to pay any attention to historical availability. Just like now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I also see ppl buying just the most economical forces; even over historical OOBs the cheaper the better will become SOP, which means BTS could save time by just omiting the 'rare' AFVs etc from the game and leaving the 'common' ones.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are missing the point of the Rarity system, as well as the way we have allowed the "rare" vehicles to come into play. More common vehicles will be cheaper, meaning that players will most likely be using them instead of the less common ones (which includes light and heavy vehicles alike). But the system does allow less common vehicles to be afordable. The resulting system is that you will likely not see a King Tiger in the average QB, but 1 out of perhaps 10 QBs might have one in it. Or you can play with the option off and have King Tigers in every battle like some people do right now. Player choice.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now why does a Panther cost 302 in the above example considering that as of 10 June 1944 their were 758 PzKpfw IV, 655 PzKpfw V, & 102 PzKpfw VI on the Westren Front ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said, I just looked up some quick statistics. "German Operational AFV Strength in France: 1 June, 1944" was listed by division in a book by Zalaga. The totals were:

PzIV - 719

Panther - 333

Tiger - 88

StuG/JagdPz - 393 (note, this is only for armored formations, so infantry StuGs aren't counted here)

Total of 1533 AFVs listed above.

Obiously the totals changed all the time. For example, by August 25th there were only SEVENTY FOUR total AFVs for the same divisions listed above.

BTW... we are not going to be getting into the nitty gritty of how many of this or that were actually "operational" in any given time period. Rather, we will use the total delivered to the front and curve the "rarity" based on first date introduced to last date utilized as seems appropreate. Some vehicles had a slow rate of production, and therefore slow rate of introduction, while others were deployed in huge numbers right away or only huge numbers later on.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hakko Ichiu wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anything else forces the purchaser to sacrifice combat effectiveness for rarity, thereby unbalancing his force mix versus his opponents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then the player is making a foolish selection of forces, and therefore deserves to be beat up for it. The whole point of the Rarity system is to get the player to make more historically minded choices. If the player only has 500 points, and a Tiger is worth 400 while a StuG is worth only 100, then if a Tiger is purchased instead of 2 or 3 StuGs... I have no sympathy for this person's choice.

But again, people are missing the point about the "rolling" for lower prices. OK, here is another possible example for a given battle:

Price for PzIV - 120

Price for Panther - 130

Price for Tiger - 1000

OK, now a different battle:

Price for PzIV - 150

Price for Panther - 300

Price for Tiger - 150

Now... tell me what you would purchase in each game if you had 1000 points and only these three units to choose from (just for the sake of argument, since of course you will have vastly greater unit choices).

In one battle you would be a fool to purchase Tigers, but Panthers are only marginally more expensive than a PzIV. So likely choice will be for Panthers. Next battle PzIVs are the same as Tigers, but Panthers are twice as expensive. So the player is likely to buy Tigers.

So I hope people can start to see where the flexibility of our proposed system is. Making the prices different from battle to battle influences, but doesn't totally dictate, what people can purchase. In other words, I think our system is likely to have MORE variety than some of the other proposals, while still maintaining a historical feeling for availability.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

wwb_99 wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So you should not ever see less than a platoon, and oftentimes see an entire company.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not correct. Most often you would see NO Tigers in combat. When you did, it was only a handfull unless the unit was fresh and newly committed for offensive action. When on the defense they were usually parcelled out, mostly out of dire necessity and lack of operational vehicles. There is a famous case of two, count 'em- TWO, Tigers that basically held up the Commonwealth forces advancing on Falaise. These were all that remained of the 12th SS operational Tigers.

Remember folks... armor of any type was rather uncommon on the battlefield. When armor was seen in combat it was usually in small numbers of rather mundane vehicles. Only in exceptional cases were many deployed in significant number, and only in rare cases were they the vehicles produced in smaller numbers.

Steve

[Jarmo]

I hope the rarity value changes won't be quite as huge as in these

examples. (from 200 to 1000 points)

I'd like much better a system where a player would be gently guided

to the right path. Maybe something like -20% to +50% values.

That way it would still be smart to choose unrare vehicles,

but you wouldn't be "forced" to.

And also, I'd really would prefer the rarity effect would be

optional instead of mandatory.

[Guest wwb_99]

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

wwb_99 wrote:

Not correct. Most often you would see NO Tigers in combat.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I always forget to put in a key sentance, like they should not appear but when they do they should be avaliable. I guess thats why I skipped on grad school.

I was under the impression that the Heavy Panzer Bns were held in Army reserve and not committed piecemeal, at least that was the policy. I do understand that where reality and policy disagree, policy usually loses.

And I do agree that few heavy panzer companies should ever bet at more than half strength.

But my main point still stands, one almost never saw just one Tiger.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

As I said, I just looked up some quick statistics. "German Operational AFV Strength in France: 1 June, 1944" was listed by division in a book by Zalaga. The totals were:

PzIV - 719

Panther - 333

Tiger - 88

StuG/JagdPz - 393 (note, this is only for armored formations, so infantry StuGs aren't counted here)

Total of 1533 AFVs listed above.

Obiously the totals changed all the time. For example, by August 25th there were only SEVENTY FOUR total AFVs for the same divisions listed above.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve, is Steve Z reporting 'operational' tanks or total Tank strength on the Westren front because as of *31.05.44 the West had a total tank strength of:

759 - PzKpfw IV

543 - PzKpfw V,

53 - PzKpfw VI

Which by *10.06.44 had reached:

759 - PzKpfw IV

655 - PzKpfw V

102 - PzKpfw VI

158 - Stug

my question was why was the Panther 300 pts when it was as common in numbers basicly as the PzKpfw IV.

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

BTW... we are not going to be getting into the nitty gritty of how many of this or that were actually "operational" in any given time period. Rather, we will use the total delivered to the front and curve the "rarity" based on first date introduced to last date utilized as seems appropreate. Some vehicles had a slow rate of production, and therefore slow rate of introduction, while others were deployed in huge numbers right away or only huge numbers later on.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds reasnable Steve, as Tank strength was allowed to decline in the West from June to Sept 1944 because of attrition & events on the Eastren Front. i'll ask again for clarification we will have the 'option' of turning this 'rarity' modifier on or off correct?.

* See: Jentz Thomas L Panzer Truppen Vol 2, p.177 & p.202

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 01-08-2001).]

[109 Gustav]

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

OK, here is another possible example for a given battle:

Price for PzIV - 120

Price for Panther - 130

Price for Tiger - 1000

OK, now a different battle:

Price for PzIV - 150

Price for Panther - 300

Price for Tiger - 150

Now... tell me what you would purchase in each game if you had 1000 points and only these three units to choose from (just for the sake of argument, since of course you will have vastly greater unit choices).

In one battle you would be a fool to purchase Tigers, but Panthers are only marginally more expensive than a PzIV. So likely choice will be for Panthers. Next battle PzIVs are the same as Tigers, but Panthers are twice as expensive. So the player is likely to buy Tigers.

So I hope people can start to see where the flexibility of our proposed system is. Making the prices different from battle to battle influences, but doesn't totally dictate, what people can purchase. In other words, I think our system is likely to have MORE variety than some of the other proposals, while still maintaining a historical feeling for availability.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still think that there should be an option for random adjustment of all units, without regard to historical avalibility. Just because Tiger Is were historically rare in 1945 doesn't mean that nobody had them. With the system I'm proposing, they would cost more than usual in some battles, and less in others. This would simulate the effect of only being able to use units that are in the area you're fighting in.

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

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 Big Time Software]

Jarmo wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I hope the rarity value changes won't be quite as huge as in these examples. (from 200 to 1000 points)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most likely it will be. I just picked numbers that would illustrate the basic workings of the proposed feature.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd like much better a system where a player would be gently guided to the right path.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the most part this will probably be the case. Except for the vehicles that are really out there in rarity, like JagdTigers and Pershings, the point differences shouldn't be hugely different between a great number of vehicles and other units.

However...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That way it would still be smart to choose unrare vehicles, but you wouldn't be "forced" to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a slippery slope. The whole point of the Rarity system is to "force" people to be in a restricted purchasing environment. What you are leaning your comments towards is something that is inbetween the way it is now and the proposed Rarity principle. Not saying this is a bad idea, but understand that it has a slightly different goal than what we are proposing to do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And also, I'd really would prefer the rarity effect would be optional instead of mandatory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One word to you.... BASTARD

wwb_99 wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I always forget to put in a key sentance, like they should not appear but when they do they should be avaliable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I figured you meant this, but I thought I would clarify it for you

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was under the impression that the Heavy Panzer Bns were held in Army reserve and not committed piecemeal, at least that was the policy. I do understand that where reality and policy disagree, policy usually loses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct on all points. The specialized armored formations (Heavy Tank Battalions being just one form) were supposed to be allocated to a critical offensive or defensive action. They were supposed to be employed only so long as they were needed to acheive their goals. But as the Reich crumbled, the units were basically used and abused into the ground.

Very often you can find times when these detatchments had ZERO effective vehicles in service. During one very famous counter attack in the East (in connection with the Korsun pocket) the spearhead consisted of only a handfull of Tigers. Somewhere I have the day by day account of this drive (Heavy Detachment Bäke) and sometimes they had NO operational Tigers. I think 12 functional at one time was the most I saw. But it has been a while since I read through this.

Also keep in mind that certain SS and WH formations had an organic Tiger Company as part of their standard TO&E. The two Tigers fighting north of Falaise were 12th SS IIRC, and not from one of the independent units.

Steve

[Jeff Heidman]

I don't know about all this.

It just seems unfair to me that BTS is going to force everyone to use these stupid rarity factors. What if I don't want to?

At the very least, if they insist on this stupid idea, they could make them optional or something.

Jeff Heidman

[PzKpfw 1]

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

During one very famous counter attack in the East (in connection with the Korsun pocket) the spearhead consisted of only a handfull of Tigers. Somewhere I have the day by day account of this drive (Heavy Detachment Bäke) and sometimes they had NO operational Tigers. I think 12 functional at one time was the most I saw. But it has been a while since I read through this.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bake's Regt case was not realy a case of loss of operational vehichles to enemy action but one of lack of fuel, many of his Tiger's & Panthers were dry from the iniability to get them fuel Ie, the Luftwaffe airdropped fuel that was lost as the drums sank in the mud on impact etc.

Bake's Regt consisted of s.Pz.Abt 503 & Pz.Regt. 11 (Panthers) during the Tscherkassy - Korsun op 503 returned the following returns:

29.01.44 - 66

12.02.44 - 62

15.02.44 - 61

16.02.44 - 60

18.02.44 - 56

The Regt was disbanded on 25.02.44.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Pvt.Tom]

Jeff,

Check the first BTS post on page 1:

Quote:

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

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.

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

So take it easy, you will have a choice.

Pvt.Tom

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

[Basebal351]

Wow, the more I hear from BTS, and the more examples and explanations they give the more confident I become that they KNOW what they are doing, and that everyone will love their rarity factor idea when they see it in action.

I think it can be assumed that they have a pretty good idea, *probably* better than we do ( ) of how the game will play out and how the rarity factor will actually work in practice. Their ideas seem to be pretty logical, and I know for one that I welcome all of the innovations BTS has brought, and will continue to bring to the table.

Gentlemen, let us let the good men go back to work!!

Thanks,

Jim

[Guest Big Time Software]

Pvt Tom, Jeff was just fooling with me. Even without a single smiley I can tell I chuckled when I read it in fact.

John,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bake's Regt case was not realy a case of loss of operational vehichles to enemy action but one of lack of fuel, many of his Tiger's & Panthers were dry from the iniability to get them fuel Ie, the Luftwaffe airdropped fuel that was lost as the drums sank in the mud on impact etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this and the lack of spare parts, not to mention the strain of the conditions (nasty weather, no roads worth speaking of, etc.). I remember one day they started out with someting like 12 effective vehicles and wound up with almost none by the end of the day. A couple lost to mines, a couple bogged down, a couple with mechanical problems, etc. Damn... I wish I could remember which book/study I have that did the day by day. Just looked through a couple and didn't find it. I'll give another look some other day

Steve

[Pvt.Tom]

Oh, humor, I get it, someone hand me a towel so I can wipe the egg of my face .......... thanks, thats much better.

Pvt.Tom

[Pvt.Tom]

Oh, humor, I get it, someone hand me a towel so I can get the egg of my face .......... thats better, thanks

Pvt.Tom

Doh, double post, quick another towel

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

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

What I kind of like about the rarity system is the opportunity to psyche (out) your human opponents by picking the tremendously rare uebertank in lieu of 3 or 4 of the more sensible tanks. Mostly, of course, it would be a bad idea to overspend on the supertanks, but if your opponent thinks you are going to do the sensible thing and stock up on MkIVs, so he stocks up on Sherm 75s, imagine his surprise when he encounters your Jagdpanther