81mm vs 75mm

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There was a 3" mtr mounted on a universal carrier. Anybody knows whether that could fire while the mortar was on the vehicle, like the U.S. mortars carrier halftracks?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All Commonwealth units like this fired dismounted, EXCEPT for the Aussies. I am not sure how widespread their alterations were, but they did manage to mount the mortar on top of the engine compartment so that it could fire forwards.

Steve

[Wreck]

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

... the 81mm teams have 2 more men than the 3" mortars, meaning that they have greater staying power in the field. In other words, it is much easier to knock out or immobilize a 3" mortar than a 81mm. Also, ammo counts go down VERY fast if the 3" mortar takes casualties and then tries to move.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

90+% of games I play, my mortars end up with zero ammo, and unhurt. This is not surprising, since I practically never expose them to the enemy. Two extra men for half the ammo is not an even trade in my experience.

And I don't think it is even in the experience of most other good players, either, judging by how they rave about (and buy) the 76mm.

[Battlefront.com]

Here are the stats...

81mm Mortar - 26

3" Mortar - 36

81mm are 28% cheaper

Blast radius for each is:

81mm Mortar - 18

3" Mortar - 26

81mm are 30% less effective per round

Number of rounds is:

81mm Mortar - 26 (roughly)

3" Mortar - 66 (roughly)

81mm has 60% less ammo

Number of men:

81mm Mortar - 6 men

3" Mortar - 3

81mm has 100% more manpower

The 3" are also slower on the move, so effectively they are next to impossible to move without transport any significant distance. Obviously, this is not a problem on defense, but we don't cost out units differently depending on use.

So... if you use 3" mortars, on defense, in good concealed positions... I'd say they have an edge over an 81mm mortar in terms of price. But if you are on the attack, or have to shift positions without transport, then the 81mm have an edge. The big difference is if the enemy gets a chance to take a crack at your team...

One Casualty:

81mm Mortar - No ROF decrease, minimal ammo loss if moved

3" Moratar - No ROF decrease, significant ammo loss if moved

Two Casualties:

81mm Mortar - No ROF decrease, significant ammo loss if moved

3" Moratar - ROF decreased, immobilized

Three Casualties:

81mm Mortar - No ROF decrease, significant ammo loss if moved

3" Moratar - eliminated

Four Casualties:

81mm Mortar - No ROF decrease, serious ammo loss if moved

3" Moratar - eliminated (x2)

Five Casualties:

81mm Mortar - ROF decrease, immoblized

3" Moratar - eliminated (x3)

Six Casualties:

81mm Mortar - eliminated

3" Moratar - eliminated (x4)

So... like any unit in CM, the value of the unit in the field all depends on the person using it and the circumstances of that particular battle. The price can not take such things into considderation because they are too variable.

Steve

[ 05-10-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[JasonC]

Originally posted by Big Time

That's fine, but.

Is there anyone who would buy a 81mm mortar at the some price as the US or Germans ones, as the Brits, with the 3" available with its 2.5 times the ammo?

(chirp... chirp...)

No.

As the previous poster noted, on map mortars usually fire off their ammo and without taking losses. Sometimes they get clobbered on the move, morale goes, the mortar is KOed or abandoned - hardly matters how many men are left when that does happen.

If the ammo difference were small - 25% more or something - then it might be counterbalanced by the men and mobility. But it isn't. 2 3" mortars will put out about the same firepower in the course of a game as -seven- 81mm mortars. For 40% of the cost.

The 3" mortar should cost more like 48-54 points with its existing ammo load. It would still be a bargain in price of firepower terms, compared to all other one-map mortats. I'd still buy it, I can tell you.

[Jarmo]

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

The 3" mortar should cost more like 48-54 points with its existing ammo load. It would still be a bargain in price of firepower terms, compared to all other one-map mortats. I'd still buy it, I can tell you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't. In my opinion, mortars are best used on offense.

Taking out gun positions or suppressing MG's. I consider

it to be a waste to use the smallish bombs against infantry.

So mobility

and survivability are key features for me.

Even 81mm ones, I often manage to lose to arty strikes.

(I do know how to use HQ as spotter)

[Battlefront.com]

JasonC,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That's fine, but.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it now registers with you that we aren't bumbling around in the dark, then it was worth the time to explain things. With all the work we have done, and obvious attention to detail, when you find something you don't understand it is best to assume that you aren't looking at everything that we did. Sure, we make mistakes, but most have been found and corrected a long time ago. So it is most likely that there is another legit side of the story.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is there anyone who would buy a 81mm mortar at the some price as the US or Germans ones, as the Brits, with the 3" available with its 2.5 times the ammo?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anybody that doesn't "Cherry Pick", like myself, would say YES. If I play as the Brits I play with 3", if I play as the US I play with 81mm. Cost is irrelevant to me since I don't mix and match. CM1 offers QuickBattle options to eliminate national/branch based Cherry Picking, and CM2 will extend that by adding the optional Rarity System to eliminate inter national/branch Cherry Picking. I for one will probably never play a game without these two options on

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As the previous poster noted, on map mortars usually fire off their ammo and without taking losses. Sometimes they get clobbered on the move, morale goes, the mortar is KOed or abandoned - hardly matters how many men are left when that does happen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Using this logic something like a Hetzer or a Jagdtiger is worth 10 times what you pay for one. If you keep it in the back, away from flanking shots, and with good LOS you are sitting pretty. So it hardly matters that the Hetzer (especially) is very weak on the sides when you use it correctly in ideal circumstances.

Are the 3" mortars underpriced? Perhaps, perhaps not. All depends on how they are used, and that is true for many weapons systems in the game. However, keep in mind that the equations that calculated the prices for these mortars are the same ones that calculated the prices for every other artillery type weapon in the game. The 3" might be something worthy of special casing, but again... that is debatable.

Steve

[ 05-11-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Battlefront.com]

Just thought to add this to Jason's comments:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sometimes they get clobbered on the move, morale goes, the mortar is KOed or abandoned - hardly matters how many men are left when that does happen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this situation it hardly matters how many men are left, correct. But it DOES matter how many men you start out with. A small amount of enemy fire can eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, a 3" mortar team. However, the 6 man 81mm teams can take quite a beating before becoming totally useless.

And don't forget, morale becomes a bigger problem with the higher % casualties a unit takes. So 1 casualty for a 3" mortar team means 66% effective strength. 1 casualty for a 6 man 81mm team means 83% effective strength. 2 casualties and they are 33% and 66%, 3 casualties 0% and 50%. Regular units basically start having a significant chance of flaking out around 75%, so 1 casualty means a lot for that 3" mortar and probably nothing for the 81mm.

The manpower advantage can not be brushed aside. See my above headcount reduction comparison.

Steve

[ 05-11-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>With all the work we have done, and obvious attention to detail, when you find something you don't understand it is best to assume that you aren't looking at everything that we did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What! That's a little naive of you Steve. Surely ones first reaction must be that the makers of the game were a little naive to say the least! Given the slap dash manner you put the thing together it's bleedin' obvious you just cobbled together a few stats of the top of your heads. Sheesh, trying to pull the wool over our eyes again!

[JasonC]

"keep in mind that the equations that calculated the prices for these mortars are the same ones"

Why is that less than full reassuring? LOL.

Pretending all the prices in CM are right is just plain silly. A large reason why people insist on non-picking is because everyone knows there are items far from their real values. Personally, I find price discrepancies irritating primarily for what they discourage, more so than what they encourage. Can any price system by perfect? No. But when an item is obviously priced out of line, that is on its face a reason to tweak it, rather than a reason to throw up the hands.

Others have presented you numerous cases of price discrepancies on the past. I have too. And some of them are obviously a case of the items in your formula valuing some characteristics above their combat worth.

"How can anyone say that?" huff huff. Simple. If people both prefer one side of a trade to another almost uniformly, it is a skewed trade. Grade schoolers understand it - "you cut I choose", right? Well, if the left half is always getting chosen, the cutting isn't down the middle.

I take two cases to show what I mean. A flamethrower team costs 1 pt more than a 3" mortar team. Now, in general your formulas overrate the importance of number of men, compared to quality of weapons, in my humble opinion (more on that later). But if there is one case where few men makes firepower less valuable, it is a slow infantry direct fire weapon with a range of 45 yards.

Anyone care for a meeting engagement between 3 vanilla platoons, each supported by 4 support weapons - you get flamethrowers, I get 3" mortars?

It is not that number of men is unimportant, it is that the importance of number of men varies inversely with range, indirect vs. direct fire, etc. Incidentally, how does a flamethrower merit 37 points, with 2 men, slow, next to no ammo or range?

Ok, here is another test to see if all prices are koposectic. Would you rather have 3 supporting 3" mortars with 198 HE shells each 26 blast? Or 2 SPW-251/1 vanilla halftracks each with an MG?

Or leave 3" mortars. Would you rather have 2 SPW-251/1s carrying 4 flamethrowers (LOL), or 2 Jadgpanzers? Or, would you rather have 3 vanilla US rifle platoons or 4 VG SMG platoons? Yeah, there are 8 more men in the rifle platoons, and it is 12 points less. But you'll probably want a few bazookas, not having fausts.

Automatic weapons are underpriced. A rifle and an SMG cost the same. (Some prefer 2 LMG squad types with some SMGs included, to pure SMG. Nobody prefers the plain vanilla rifle squads as the Germans, because they have better choices). Squad-carrying ability is overpriced in vehicles, compared to fighting ability. Thick front armor plates are underpriced in armor buying. Tanks with marginal survivability improvements, 1 extra MG, etc, pay as much for such minor extras are for guns that kill anything or armor that stops most rounds from the front. Ammo is often underweighted in pricing (e.g. a German HMG team costs 2 points more than a US 50 cal. It gets vastly more ammo and far greater firepower). Brits pay no more for 17-lb guns on tanks, that can kill almost anything, than the US pays for 76mm and wet stowage, which can't kill many things, etc. Highly effective light guns with large ammo loads are systematically underpriced - e.g. 20mm AA, 75mm Inf, etc.

All experienced players are aware of some of these cases. Most avoid exploiting them by either letting the computer pick the forces, or by picking strictly historical force mixes. This still detracts some from experimenting with force mixes to get a sense why they did things certain ways (first case, because you can't pick, second, because you can't experiment too much and still be fair).

Do I expect BTS to develop a perfect price system? No of course not. Whatever relationships are created between prices and combat ability, people will find some way to wiggle with want is given. But not having that unrealistic expectation, is different from the "do no wrong" PAK-front. When players point out real differences between price and combat value, it would behoove you to stop reciting your formulas for 10 minutes and pay attention. As sometimes you do, else this board would not be here. Well, the 3" mortar is such a case - and the flamethrower, and the other examples above are other such cases.

Here is a test to determine whether or not something is within the realm of just tweaks, or is out of whack enough to create exploitable problems. Consider the most important 1 or 2 combat variables attached to an item. If two similar items differ in the amount of those things bought per point of price, by a factor of two, then there is danger of gamey outcomes. And deserve a harder look, with game design in mind rather than a formula.

When it is a matter of 1.25 or 1.33 times some relevant variable, no sweat. When it is 2-2.5 times, that is a different story.

When players readily prefer one to another as a bargain, and such 2x effects are clearly present and potentially exploitable, then tweaking the prices is sensible. Without any pretence of perfection. It ought to be possible to get the "lumpy" and "noisy" match between price and combat power, to within broad ranges, and certainly under 2x.

[Fishu]

hmm, quite interesting statistics..

How do they carry all the rounds with just 3 men, compared that germans cant haul more than 26 rounds with *6* men? (btw. theres 4 smoke rounds too)

I looked into the scenario editor, 81mm maximum load was 40 rounds (although, default seems ~26 HE and ~4 smoke)

brits 3in could carry maximum of 99 rounds.

I think its *absurd* to have 3 men carry that many rounds and keep big 6 man team so low in count.

30 round (26 HE / 4 SMK) / 6 men = *5* rounds each.

66 rounds (60 HE / 6 SMK) / 3 men = wow, 22 rounds per man.

This would come even bigger issue when takes into count that these 3 men also should carry the mortar tube and launchpad. (or whatever)

I would vote for more rounds for the 81mm team or less rounds for 3in team.

(roughly: it takes at least one man to carry mortar equiptment and then it would be 33 rounds per man)

At the moment, I haven't had much use for the 81mm mortar due to low ammo count, when I could get more power with same price.

[Redwolf]

Steve, if you still copy, could you check whether the 3" mortar is easier to spot than the 81mm one?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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

Redwolf wrote:

All Commonwealth units like this fired dismounted, EXCEPT for the Aussies. I am not sure how widespread their alterations were, but they did manage to mount the mortar on top of the engine compartment so that it could fire forwards.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah yes... the Aussies were always renowned for their mounting skills.

Regards

Jim R.

[Wreck]

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

In my opinion, mortars are best used on offense.

Taking out gun positions or suppressing MG's. I consider

it to be a waste to use the smallish bombs against infantry.

So mobility

and survivability are key features for me.

Even 81mm ones, I often manage to lose to arty strikes.

(I do know how to use HQ as spotter)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would never use an 81mm against anything but opposing guns, until I was pretty darn sure that either I had KOed them all, or else that any that were left were not going to be visible. At that point I would probably vent any remaining ammo at whatever seemed opportune. Or I might move -- depending on how far and how exposed it was going to be to get a bead on whatever guns were out there.

This is true of both offense and defense. The QB map generator happens to create maps where the setup from both sides can often see most of the map. That is a simple fact which we have to live with. There are almost always many places you can set up mortars, so that an observer can see vast swaths of the map for them.

Therefore, mortars rarely need mobility, in most quick battles. Maybe a little bit to get to the initial firing positions, but usually you get a fine place in setup.

As for losing them to enemy counterfire, well, that is possibly a risk for 76mm ones, but rarely for 81mm. Why? Because by the time the enemy has a good fix on where your 81mm mortars are, you should have fired most or all of your ammo. He should know that, and save his arty for better targets. In any case, having extra men is usually not decisive when under arty, since near-hits will cause the men to leave the mortar regardless of their number. After they ditch the mortar you don't care about their numbers. What extra men are good for is when you are under constant, low-firepower plinking such that you lose a man here, a man there.

A tip for observers: try to use a leader +1 or +2 command. (If he also has morale or combat, perhaps he is better at the front, but if he doesn't he is a great observer.) This allows the mortars he directs to be far enough apart that they cannot all be hit with the same arty. Use his platoon either with a company commander or as a reserve unit in front of the leader, so that after you kill a gun or three with the mortars he can run forward, join his guys and go to the front.

[Arsenal]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ah yes... the Aussies were always renowned for their mounting skills.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm,I seem to remember this.I think it involves an Australian,a kangaroo of the furry kind and a mounting type action from one towards the other.

[Wreck]

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

With all the work we have done, and obvious attention to detail,

when you find something you don't understand it is best to assume that you aren't looking

at everything that we did.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, everyone knows this. And I expect everyone in this debate, if asked, would say that by and large CM is pretty well balanced. The prices are not perfect, but pretty good.

That said, they are not perfect and we know it. You forget that we have a source even more infallible than BTS' formulae for testing the price/performance of units: the game itself. That's what I am reporting to you when I tell you that almost always, I end up with mortar teams intact and out of ammo. Games played at TH, that is, as American and German. I rarely play Brits, though I must say they are looking better and better.

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

Are the 3" mortars underpriced? Perhaps, perhaps not. All depends on how they are used, and that is true for many weapons systems in the game.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is true that the price of a unit is relative to its use. But the question should be not how they can be used, but how they are best used (assuming that "best used" is something the player can reasonably get in most reasonable game situations). For an extreme example, it is possible to pay 200 points for a Panther and then reverse it into battle. If you do that, you can expect to lose it very quickly, and it will not be worth the 200 points.

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

However, keep in mind that the equations that calculated the prices for these mortars are the same ones that calculated the prices for every other artillery type weapon in the game. The 3" might be something worthy of special casing, but again... that is debatable.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If mortars are priced like other guns, then it is certain that mortars with few men are going to be bargains and mortars with many men, not so good. Guns face the enemy and take casualties; they need men. Mortars don't, much. Similarly, having large supplies of ammo with a gun is going to be much less worthwhile than having large amounts with a mortar. The mortar is very likely to fire all of its load. An average gun is not; some do, yes, but many die before getting off more than a few rounds.

Mortars should not be priced using the same equation as guns. If indirect fire was not possible for mortars, then using the same equation would be fine. But indirect fire is possible. (Incidentally, if you add indirect fire for on-board guns in CM2, then you are going to want to reprice them using the mortar equations.)

[Jarmo]

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

Mortars should not be priced using the same equation as guns. If indirect fire was not possible for mortars, then using the same equation would be fine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If indirect fire was not possible, do you think the mortar

prices would't seem a bit steep compared to, say, 75mm howitzer?

Seems the mortars already are more expensive than guns,

comparing firepower and survivability.

[Battlefront.com]

SimonFox wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Surely ones first reaction must be that the makers of the game were a little naive to say the least! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently. And if I have an opinion which is different, as the game designer, I am not supposed to express it because the customer is ALWAYS right.

JasonC wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pretending all the prices in CM are right is just plain silly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. And if you can point out where I said that all the prices are "right" I'll gladly eat every word in this thread. Anyone? To quote your own words:

*chirp* *chirp* *chirp*

I would counter that assuming that we are"naive" or blind or whatever is insulting. I can find references of this attitude direct and inferred from you. So kindly drop the attitude and stick to the issues.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> A large reason why people insist on non-picking is because everyone knows there are items far from their real values. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no such thing as "real values", therefore the "real value" of something is just an opinion. Therefore... room for discussion will always be present. Stop trying so hard to shout it down.

If there were a true "real value" for units, making a point system would be the easiest thing in the world. But reality is that a point system is a guess, a gut feeling based on tangible factors, and above all... a gross approximation. What I mean by that is the combat worth of a weapon system is HIGHLY dependent on use and circumstance. A Jagdtiger in an open map is worth 10 times the price, but the same vehicle in a hilly and wooded map while on the attack is a complete waste of points. Anybody that doesn't fully grasp this aspect can't understand how impossible it is for us to please everybody.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Can any price system by perfect? No. But when an item is obviously priced out of line, that is on its face a reason to tweak it, rather than a reason to throw up the hands.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have tweaked prices in the past for things, so I don't know who is throwing up their hands. We certainly aren't. Otherwise, why bother debating you? It would be far better for me to just ignore you if we didn't care about improving the system. Or do you think I sit here typing because I have nothing better to do with my time? The fact is that we disagree that it is "priced out of line". I have outlined the basic reasons why we disagree that a point tweak, at least a major one, is called for. You can disagree, but don't treat us like we don't have a valid counter position to take.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do I expect BTS to develop a perfect price system? No of course not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After reading your last post I am not so sure this is true. I get the feeling you think that pretty much everything is priced incorrectly. You have your opinions, but they are just that -> opinions. Please do not confuse them with incontrovertible facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Whatever relationships are created between prices and combat ability, people will find some way to wiggle with want is given. But not having that unrealistic expectation, is different from the "do no wrong" PAK-front.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is taking the "do no wrong" approach? If anybody is, I'd say it is you. I have said that the 3" mortars might be overpriced, but I have also outlined logical and rational reasons to counter your position that change is warranted. But my words are bouncing off you like .30cal off a King Tiger.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When players point out real differences between price and combat value, it would behoove you to stop reciting your formulas for 10 minutes and pay attention. As sometimes you do, else this board would not be here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't need YOU to remind me why this BBS is here or why it is important to listen to people's opinions. But if I honestly disagree with a customer, I get the feeling that I am supposed to just change my mind and make a change simply to avoid boring you with the inner workings of how and why we made certain decisions? Or am I allowed to express myself and my opinions as freely as you do yours?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ok, here is another test to see if all prices are koposectic. Would you rather have 3 supporting 3" mortars with 198 HE shells each 26 blast? Or 2 SPW-251/1 vanilla halftracks each with an MG?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are straw man examples. The answer is "whatever best supports the type of force I am purchasing for the type of combat conditions". If I have no organic transport for the mortars, am on the attack, in a largely wooded and hilly map... I'd take the SPWs any day of the week. On defense with a great open field of view... the mortars, obviously. But I would take 81mm mortars over the SPWs too, so what is your point? Plus, the player never has a choice between SPWs and 3" mortars, so why use it as an example in the first place?

If you spend enough time you can come up with thousands of little things like this. And guess what? If we made the SPWs more expensive, or the 3" mortars more inexpensive, it would be "naive" of you to assume that wouldn't cause a ripple effect with comparisons to other units. In other words, since (as you apparently believe) that no pricing system is perfect no amount of tweaking will eliminate seemingly unbalanced comparisons. A good game designer understands this, but very few players ever fully do. Easy to toss stones at a glass house when one is homeless.

Look, you can't have it both ways. Pricing is subjective at best. Period. It will never be perfect. Period. If you tweak one thing you are likely to create a new unbalanced price comparison with something else. Then you tweak that and cause an imbalance somewhere else. Now before you start going off about how we don't listen or admit there is room for change again, I will say this again VERY clearly...

The pricing system in Combat Mission is not perfect, but it is a SYSTEM that largely does what it was designed to do. And that is to give some sort of balanced, non-arbitrary worth to each individual unit out of a large and HUGELY diverse pool, no matter what the conditions are on the battlefield. This is no small task folks, and I think we did a damned good job at it (obviously JasonC thinks he could do a much better one). Is it perfect? No. Will it ever be? No, not even if we tweaked every single thing that has been mentioned here. In fact, tweaking often leads to creating new unbalanced comparisons. So on the whole, it is like a dog chasing its tail.

Adding Rarity will be a HUGE step forward in smoothing out pricing issues, especially with competitive play.

Fishu wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think its *absurd* to have 3 men carry that many rounds and keep big 6 man team so low in count.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I explained earlier, this was done because the 3" mortars are fairly unique in terms of how they were deployed. They had dedicated, organic ARMORED transport that would drive up to the deployment spot. The mortar and ammo would be unloaded using the 3 man crew, driver, and Bren gunner. A total of 5 men. The mortar would then remain there in position, and the driver would most likely move the vehicle far enough away that it wouldn't get knocked about by counter battery fire.

The problem with CM is that we can not have mix and match crews. So the Bren must have a PERMANENT crew of 2. Since Universal Carrier can't take a 5 man mortar team and ammo, we have a problem. Either give the mortar crew two extra men and allow the UC to be unrealistically stuffed, or make the mortar have ahistorically low ammo counts in *ALL* situations (stationary on defense as well as mobile on the attack), or do do what we did. And that was to make the 3" team have only 3 men and move slower than a 81mm team. Is this realistic? No, but no matter what we did the end result would be unrealistic. We picked the option that we felt was most fair overall.

Redwolf,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve, if you still copy, could you check whether the 3" mortar is easier to spot than the 81mm one? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think there is any inherent difference. But moving slower is certainly something that increases the chance of being spotted while on the move.

Wreck wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That said, they are not perfect and we know it. You forget that we have a source even more infallible than BTS' formulae for testing the price/performance of units: the game itself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Observations taken from gameplay are highly subjective. Check out how many threads there have been with "infallible" feedback from players suggesting that the armor values for GERMAN TANKS "doesn't feel quite right". Hey, you could be right... but never forget that we are still talking about opinions here. And we happen to have our own.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That's what I am reporting to you when I tell you that almost always, I end up with mortar teams intact and out of ammo. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And other people, including me, have made mention of losing men to counter battery or small arms fire. Are my personal experiences less valid than yours? Maybe I play a lot more varried situations than you do or something else that might lead me to have different outcomes than you. Personally, I think BOTH of our experiences are valid. Again, there is nothing "infallible" about game play experiences. Gather enough people together and you will find there are often more opinions than players expressing them

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Games played at TH, that is, as American and German. I rarely play Brits, though I must say they are looking better and better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Because of this one unit price? I think that is pretty much throwing on the blinders. Each nationality has its +/-. Overall, I'd take a US based infantry formation any day vs. a British one. Higher headcount and greater firepower squad for squad. I can avoid mortar fire effects pretty easily, especially in dense maps, but avoiding infantry is a lot harder. I'll take the stronger infantry any day over a better mortar.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is true that the price of a unit is relative to its use. But the question should be not how they can be used, but how they are best used (assuming that "best used" is something the player can reasonably get in most reasonable game situations). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This assumption is very hard to make hold water. Again, if you purchase a Hetzer in defense for a non-wooded map the little bastard can be unbelievable cheap for the effect it causes on the enemy. But this assumes specific conditions, ideally suited to the vehicle, and the knowledge of how to best use the vehicle. Again, this is why it is impossible to have a system that works equally well (fair) in any and all situations when compared directly to something else, either in the same or different circumstances.

Having said all of that, we have made price tweaks in the past. We will continue to refine things as we go along. But I honestly think there is a perception in this thread here that it is far easier to do this than it really is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For an extreme example, it is possible to pay 200 points for a Panther and then reverse it into battle. If you do that, you can expect to lose it very quickly, and it will not be worth the 200 points. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a rather silly example. Might as well suggest ordering a mortar team move up and do hand to hand combat with enemy infantry while it has a full ammo load Seriously, your example would be better if you likened it to spending 200 points for a Panther and, while doing a fairly standard maneuver, getting a hole punched in its side by a relatively inexpensive US 57mm AT gun. The difference is that you are comparing something that a person would never do (i.e. driving a tank backwards) vs. something that someone might do (i.e. getting caught by counter battery fire or an ambush while on the move).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mortars should not be priced using the same equation as guns. If indirect fire was not possible for mortars, then using the same equation would be fine. But indirect fire is possible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a one sided look at the situation. Guns have the ability to kill AFVs, they have better accuracy, and they also are generally more powerful shot for shot (partly due to accuracy and partly to blast radius). On the other hand, mortar rounds tend to have less of a punch and are inaccurate at best, making each shot worth a lot less than that of a gun. Smaller mortars are practically useless for anything but infantry suppression, so for example why should they suddenly become more expensive simply because they can fire from hiding if the conditions are right (again, only if they are right)?

Again, people need to keep in mind that this is a VERY complex issue. Those coming at it with a simple, cut and dried approach need to take a few steps back, along with some deep breaths, and look at the system as a whole quite a bit more. If you find that you are seeing the same situations over and over again, might I suggest playing with different game parameters? Anybody that thinks 3" mortars are über weapons for the price probably aren't playing densely wooded and hill maps as much as the more open Farmland ones

Steve

[ 05-11-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Wreck]

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

If indirect fire was not possible, do you think the mortar prices would't seem a bit steep compared to, say, 75mm howitzer?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. The direct fire guns all have substantial antitank capability, for one thing. But they also have far larger blast ratings. They are definitely superior.

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

Seems the mortars already are more expensive than guns, comparing firepower and survivability.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True enough. However, I was responding conditionally to what Steve said: that the same equation was used for all guns. It may be that that formula does distinguish mortars somehow. (In fact, it must if your observation that mortars are more costly is correct, which is true IMO.) However, what I was pointing out was that the formulae need to differ in quite a few respects, which is evidently not the case. Among those respects are: price per-man for crew size (less important for mortars than guns), and price per point of ammo (more important for mortars than guns).

[Wreck]

Steve, you criticize the idea of objective values for units. It is true that unit values will vary depending on the exact details of where (terrain) and how (tactics) they are used. And also the problem of what surrounds them -- other friendly units, and which enemy units exist. The "how", however, should not be an issue. As I said before, they should be priced according to good tactical use. I did not make it clear that I was talking only about how they are used, and not talking about where they are used. (I thought the example of backing into battle would clarify that. Your example of buying a mortar and charging for close combat is another good example of very bad tactical use.)

I don't think you would disagree, that given any particular map and already chosen friendly and enemy forces, the value of a unit to two highly skilled players is about the same.

That's one way in which unit values are objective.

As for friendly and enemy units, the game itself defines which of these are likely, both by their point values and by the quotas set to their classification in the unit purchase. Human purchases for competitive games tend to have a uniformity. So really the friendly and enemy forces will not vary so much, as to make wild changes in the value of a unit.

That said, the issue you have with both me and Jason, boils down to just terrain. Your example being heavily wooded and hilly. IMO, just using rural and heavily wooded, and flat, is the most extreme CM quickbattle possible, mapwise. However, even that is not as extreme as you portray it. I had occasion yesterday to look at one such map very closely (me attacking, medium, rural, heavy woods, small hills). It still had a number of clearings 100m or more. Tank movement was limited, but even with no road I could get from my setup area to all the flags. So yes, it was lousy for tanks, but tanks would still be effective. They are less valuable, perhaps, by a factor of 2, say. But no worse than that.

We could make terrain objective in several ways. One might be to declare a canonical set of QB params, to try to determine fair prices only for that. At TH, the most common params are villiage, medium woods, moderate hills. So that's what my experience reflects a lot of. However, we might pick anything.

Better would be to say that all possible QB generated maps are equal in weight. That still gives us an objective set of circumstances. Albeit a rather large set. And this is what I think you should aim for.

Now we finally get to my point. In practically every map you can generate, there are going to be either (a) long lines of sight, or ( enough cover, so that mortars can operate without having to expose themselves. This means that ability to take losses simply is not that important for mortars.

[Fishu]

Mortars are handy for bogging down the enemies and then assaulting them, though.

Favorite scenario in wooded terrain: bog the enemy down with concentrated mortar fire and then assault them with the infantry.

Even better as a killer & suppressor is 81mm mortar spotter - alot of rounds and quick response, which comes handy in slowing down or breaking down an infantry assault.

After a minute or two, counter-attack is a must, really wipes every bit of them.

(thats why I dont really like of howitzers against assaulting infantry - too slow rate of fire and long response time)

[Wreck]

Steve, you ask if your subjective experience is not equally as important as mine. Obviously, it is. In fact, yours is more so, since mine might influence the Game if I whine hard and long, whereas your own influences you (and thus the Game) regardless of what I do.

You assert that you have lost mortars to counter battery or small arms fire. So have I. But that is not the question. The question is about the difference in rates between towed guns and mortars. In your experience, are mortars significantly more likely to be killed in a game than guns? In your experience, do mortars fire a significantly higher percentage of their total ammo, on average, than guns do?

I have a hard time imagining that your answers to these questions will not be yes. I suppose you might think that the difference in rates is not significant.

Here's my experience. I would guess that perhaps 95% of my mortars make it to the end of the game. Perhaps 30% of my guns do. That difference is huge!

My mortars which survive fire 100% of their HE, every time. Often they finish with a few smoke rounds, but let's ignore smoke. The ones that die might average 40% shots fired; it can happy pretty randomly. All in all I get something like 97% of all mortar shells bought fired. For guns, the ones that live don't alway get 100% fired, since sometimes they are positioned badly, or I open up too late. But I would guess a high amount, maybe 80% usage. The ones that die, usually die after just a few shots. Some live a few turns. They might average 20% usage. So in total I am getting something like 38% ammo usage for guns. That, again is significantly different than the rate for mortars.

If your experience is anything like mine, then you should understand why I am arguing that the same price equation should not apply to both mortars and guns.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Wreck:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve, you criticize the idea of objective values for units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I criticize it mostly because it is impractical/impossible to do for every individual unit, in all conditions and circumstances, fairly and equally. It is a very bad idea to single out one particular case for one particular unit type and base the points around it. When working with an abstract system as core to the game as this, making special exceptions will most likely bite you on the butt somewhere else.

We are also against pricing units according to tactical use because this might make some weapons too expensive or two cheap in regards to a historical TO&E. For example, let us say we made 3" mortars 90 points. Who would buy them? I wouldn't. So if I were the Brits I would be artificially steered away from this weapon for reasons I don't feel can be soundly justified.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't think you would disagree, that given any particular map and already chosen friendly and enemy forces, the value of a unit to two highly skilled players is about the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I do disagree. The value of a unit is dependent upon far more factors than just terrain. Who is attack, who is defending, what the particular map features are in certain areas, etc. But if you mean that if two people pretty much play meeting engagements with the same old settings over and over again... yes, I do agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Human purchases for competitive games tend to have a uniformity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suggest that this is the primary problem with playing a game without random variables. In other words, HUMANS tend to make the game uniform by limiting their own options, not because the points limit them. Rarity will be a big step towards fixing this problem, as well as introducing more random generation settings.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I had occasion yesterday to look at one such map very closely (me attacking, medium, rural, heavy woods, small hills). It still had a number of clearings 100m or more. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, and I as a skilled player would avoid those openings like the plague if I suspected you had artillery of ANY type. Remember, a FO for artillery is far worse than a 3" on map mortar. If I am to fear something in a game it is not on map mortars. I can deal with them, even the 120s.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tank movement was limited, but even with no road I could get from my setup area to all the flags. So yes, it was lousy for tanks, but tanks would still be effective. They are less valuable, perhaps, by a factor of 2, say. But no worse than that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a good example of the slippery slope problem. So you are saying that mortars were basically half as effective in a differently generated map, and tanks were probably.... what... quartered or even worse than their value on a more open map? So why stop with just tweaking mortar prices? Why not tweak all categories of weapons based on some sort of "average" use? I'm not be a jerk here, I simply wish to point out (once again) that this is not a simple issue to address. It has much larger implications that you appear to think. As the game designers we have experience with this sort of thing and feel it is not a road that would be best traveled down

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We could make terrain objective in several ways. One might be to declare a canonical set of QB params, to try to determine fair prices only for that. At TH, the most common params are villiage, medium woods, moderate hills. So that's what my experience reflects a lot of. However, we might pick anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Anything. And that means that whatever we pick someone will feel is "wrong" or "unfair" or whatever. See, it is a no win situation for us What you are suggesting is that we put aside all our well founded aversion for such a thing, spend a whole lot of time figuring out a new system, and then wind up right back where we are right now at best. For all you or I know this might be impossible to do. I mean, have you made a game that uses such a system before? I know we haven't, so success as you define it might not be the likely outcome. Seems rather pointless to me

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now we finally get to my point. In practically every map you can generate, there are going to be either (a) long lines of sight, or ( enough cover, so that mortars can operate without having to expose themselves. This means that ability to take losses simply is not that important for mortars. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you are trimming down the possibilities to the way YOU play YOUR games. What happens if you don't have a spare HQ? How can your mortars fire indirectly? If we make on map mortars more expensive, why not buy an FO for something else? Or should we lower the price of all the artillery? But if we do that, we will probably have to lower the price of all the infantry because the artillery will hack them to pieces. The of course no armor will possibly be able to survive with so much infantry around, so we will have to lower their prices too. Yes, I know I am going to an extreme here... but I honestly don't think you are connecting all the dots. Change in one place does not mean that the system as a whole doesn't have its fundamental character altered, requiring more changes.

In the end, I don't think this is where our time is best spent. The system works very well right now, as it is. There is room for improvement, but I feel that the biggest area to improve is helping people play CM in more varied ways. Rarity and more random options are key pieces to this plan.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Wreck wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If your experience is anything like mine, then you should understand why I am arguing that the same price equation should not apply to both mortars and guns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Survivability is NOT the most important price consideration. If it were, King Tigers would be several times as expensive as early Shermans, and Hummels would be the cheapest thing in the German arsenal. Well, except for the Kübelwagen where you would get four for the price of one

Once again, there are other factors at play. I would suspect that the 30% of your guns that survive scored a lot more kills than the average mortar in that 95%. I would also be surprised to hear that you were knocking out a lot of heavy armor with those mortars, especially because most are probably small caliber. Also, what percentage of your armor or non armored vehicles survive? Probably pretty low, so perhaps they are overpriced?

The fact of the matter is that mortars were more common on the battlefield than artillery. They made up a part of the standard infantry formation of every major nation in WWII. Artillery was very rarely organic to low level infantry formations. If we price them upwards we are basically screwing with historical reality.

I think you are overating mortars, or are at least not keeping them in the larger context of the game itself. We are not going to screw with this system of pricing in any fundamental way. It works, and it works well. Not perfect, but I also do not agree that it is broken to the extent that major reworking is necessary. And that is, in fact, what you are asking for.

Steve

[Jeff Heidman]

Steve, could you go ahead and post the pricing formulas for everything so we could let you know how far off they are, and why?

Thanks.

Jeff Heidman

P.S. While you are at it, all the combat results formulas would also be nice. I am certain we could correct a lot of those also.

[Jarmo]

Huh. Steve. What is this?

First ye'r out of the forum for half a year, and then this.

Arguing of (subjective) point values like this was the first time?

Making long posts like there's no tomorrow.

You suddenly need a huge adrenaline rush for something?

Been hitting your head against the wall too many times with CM2?