Battlefront.com Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 FFE, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm agree to the point; far too many variables exist to nail down one specific value for any given unit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly. And it is also possible for me to agree with your logic and disagree with it at the same time. Because there are so many possible variable situations, this is not surprising. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Points are abstract, this I can live with. Functionality and limits placed on groupings (Support, Armor, Infantry, Fortifications, Vehicles) constrain many options as certainly as the type of battle (Combined Arms, etc...) places another invisible barrier on the field.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yup. And one also has to remember that the goal is to have a reasonable number of each type of unit on the field at once. The game would be horrible if there were a dozen AT guns for a small battle when only 3 or 4 AFVs could be purchased. There are more ways than one to achieve this balance, so ours is not necessarily the best. But it does work. See next comment... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've enjoyed this game for a very long time and by no means wish to diminish the efforts placed into it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Suggesting alternatives/improvements, while listening to our opinions, in no way diminishes anything. The fact that you do like the game, and have for a very long time, means that we have more than likely struck a good balance with the prices. Perfect? No. But if it were in serious need of improvement I think the "fun factor" of the game would be really low. Even with the whole issue of Cherry Picking, people do seem to have a lot of fun with the game. And as I said above, this is an issue that can not be solved with the curent pricing system. CM2 will take care of it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Before I cease this pleasant exchange of words, I would like to advocate: Vehicle/Armor A/I Survivability Code ought to reflected in the point values. Weaker vehicles tend to dislodge themselves when facing a superior. Automated survival bolsters the effectiveness of many units, such as Sd Kfz's, Nashorns, M-10s, and others.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is an interesting point to ponder. On the one hand, I don't think it is a good idea because it gets on that slippery slope of special casing prices based on a very limited narrowing down of the absracted system. But on the other hand, it is something to keep in mind in the event that we have pricing between the different categories more or less on an even footing. This may or may not be necessary with the new Rarity system, so we will keep your suggestion in mind. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 I am sure the new rariety system is a very shiny new hammer. I am confident that it possesses a weighty head, nice heft, and other distinctly hammer-esque qualities. I have no doubt that unhistorical use of Pumas is a very nail-like practice. I do not doubt the ability of the ever so hammer-esque new hammer, to pound on such genuine nails. But I am talking about a loose screw over here. A new rariety system is fine, well and good, as I stated. But it does not make everything into a nail, no matter how things first appear to the proud possessor of a fine new hammer. Do people who think Pumas are cool, take lots of Pumas, more than ever were made? No doubt. Does this bother some grog minded folks? No doubt. Will your rariety system fix that. I have no doubt. But nobody wins CM games all out of proportion to random chance, by buying lots of Pumas. They may look cool. They are not overly deadly for the cost, enough so to swing the outcomes of many games. The very fact that people are buying them for cool factor reduces the risk that they will accidentally wind up with "win factor" in addition, or instead. By all means, fix the unhistorical aspect of that with a rariety system. But do not assume it is the screw I am talking about. I will give you a practical example of "win factor" cost problems, and what revised prices can do. You properly ask, what effect are altered prices supposed to have? They are supposed to limit the size of the force bought, or allow the opponent a larger force to meet one with many effective items in it. Here is a case to show how prices make a difference in that regard. Everyone knows the VG SMG platoons have good close range firepower, a desirable characteristic in infantry. Whenever someone points this out, the first response is that the US squads are much more capable because they are larger, being 12 men to 8. It is true the squads are larger. But it is also true that one does not get equal numbers of squads for the same price. A US player buys 2 rifle platoons, 1944 pattern. He needs some AT ability, so he adds 2 zooks, 1 per platoon. What is his cost? 268 points. How many men does he get? 84. How many HQs? 2. How many units on the map? 10. What mix of small arms? 6 BAR, 6 SMG, 2 Pistol, 66 M-1 (2 of them carbines, close enough). A German rival buys 3 VG SMG platoons. He already gets 10-15 faust-60s. How many men does he get? 84, the same. Plus an extra HQ. 12 units on the map. 6 MG42, as many as the US gets BARs., 3 pistols and 3 rifles, and 72 SMGs (66 fired counting the MGs second crewmember). His cost? 279 points, 11 more than the US. Are MG42s better or worse than BARs? Much better. SMGs better or worse than rifles? For almost all infantry work, and counting ammo limitations, the SMGs. 10-15 faust 60s do not have the range of 2 zooks, but they are on more scattered and survivable "shooters" and have better AT effect when fired. 3 HQs are better than 2, with more likelihood of high values. Does the US get an advantage in numbers to counteract these advantages? No not really. The low price of the SMG platoons makes up for the low numbers of men in each, allowing enough more to be bought, approximately, that the German player does not face an odds disadvantage for the same points available for infantry. Or, if you go by points, the US gets at most a 4% edge in numbers (multiplying up both force sizes), in return for all of those weaponry advantages. What is the effect on all of this of my SMG and faust cost proposals? Well, the SMGs are going to increase the cost of the German force above by ~21 points (2/sqd + 1/HQ), while the fausts will cost 9 more. The total German force above then costs 309 (103 per platoon), or 41 points more than the US player spent. That is roughly 1/3rd of a platoon. Depending on how the US player spends it, he might get an edge of 12-15% in numbers of men (12% - 2 MMGs for 36 points; 15% - 1/3rd of a platoon for 40) for the same amounts spent on infantry. With a corresponding narrowing of the firepower gap, in addition. The point is that the Germans cannot as easily match the US in numbers because of low price, while getting other advantages thrown in "for free". If they want to match the US in numbers, they have to spend more - which means something else in their force must go, or the US side will have more to budget for additional items, to even out the odds. The next effect of a whole change in prices might be, in a typical medium scenario, that the US side gets 1 more tank or 1 more infantry platoon, or the Germans 1 less. Or, it might be that the odds are the same as now, but the German player takes plain vanilla infantry. The players can pick which ones they think works better for them. Similarly, revaluing half-tracks downward, and making 20mm FLAK a bit more expensive, might have the effect that a US armored infantry force can fight a German leg infantry defense force, without almost automatically getting their heads handed to them. Because the US infantry will not be reduced in numbers so much to pay for their 'tracks, and the Germans will not be able to afford a battalion of 20mm FLAK along with everything else their defense needs, and may have to settle for a battery or even (horrors!) a more realistic 2-gun section. The balance problem I am talking about is not rariety. And neither is it any supposed coolness propensity to play Germans. Such a tendency might show up in more people wanting to play them, but not in the lopsided won-loss records actually seen. (Of course, attackers are more likely to win too, regardless of side, because of their point odds edge - but with German attackers and choice of forces it starts getting almost silly). If it were merely that everyone wanted German toys, then fewer players would play more games as the Allies against many playing Germans, but the won-loss records would remain about the same. What actually happens is most players are perfectly willing to play either side, but most players have a better W-L record with the Germans, and the cumulative W-L for same situation (attacker, meeting, defender) are heavily weighted toward better showings for the guys in grey. When computer-picked forces are used, this tendency declines somewhat. Why? Because the things that are bargains - thick front armor plates, automatic weapon infantry, the cheapest light guns - are more readily available in more capable and numerous forms for the Germans. By avoiding the overpriced items ('tracks, FTs, trucks, etc) this can be brought out. When the computer picks randomly, the effect is much less pronounced (note - even when it gives rare vehicles), because it is just as likely to pick an overvalued or undervalued item, or one of the majority of items that are priced about right. How do I suggest this issue be dealt with? In the long run, price revisions would be nice. In the meantime, the present main ways of handling it are - rules like 75-76, bans on AA halftracks, computer choice of forces, alternating sides or randomizing who gets the Germans. Others are considering solutions like handicaps for the Allies, or bidding for the Germans in points-allowed terms. The main problem with the last is it provides the same incentive to cherry pick, and practically requires it, because otherwise the point deficit will not be made up. My alternative suggested solution in the meantime (prior to any price tweaks, yada yada), is a "you cut - I choose" allowance for suggested price revisions. As follows - The challenger may present a list of revised prices for some items, on both sides. They should stay within a range 80% to 125% of the present CM values. He may include disqualified items, a la the recon-75-76 rules or AA haltrack/jeep MG bans. Then the challenged as a choice. He can either accept the prices offered, in which case he gets his choice of side. Or he can insist on the CM prices instead (and, optional perhaps, his own preference for the recon-75-76 rule). But in that case, the challenger gets *his* choice of side. Thus a simple version would be - "Fionn's rule of 76, no AA halftracks, nothing else" and a valid response would be "accepted, I will take the Germans". Or the challenger could say "rule of 75, infantry types pay +2 pure SMG / squad, +1 some SMG, +1 faust 60, +2 faust 100". And the other could reply, "Accepted, I will take the Allies". Or instead the challenged in the last case could say, "no, let's use rule of 76 and normal infantry prices." In that case, though, he forfeits choice of side back to the challenger, who could reply "OK, but in that case I take the Germans." Obviously, this sort of system is optional beforehand on both parts. But I think it allows the justice of "you cut, I choose", while maintaining flexibility. It does allow anyone to insist on unchanged prices, if he thinks the present ones best. But insisting on a price set would imply granting the opponent choice of side. One man's opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 Perhaps there should be a registered vehicle use tracking system. This would keep track of all games and vehicles used in games by all players. If someone went over 100 pumas, then he is disqualified from ever purchasing another puma ever again. Another option is "I challenge you to a germ-US game of XX division vs YY division". Only the vehicles actually used by those divisions can be picked. Its a little more historical based and restricted. But I spend all my points on hetzers and smg units so what do I care? Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 A very minor point on the discussion of 88 types. It is not completely true that all 88 types are equal for their effectiveness against Allied armor. The shorter 88s (FLAK and Tiger I) will not penetrate the front hull of (W)+ Sherman models, whereas the long 88s (PAK, Tiger II, Jadgpanther) will. The fellow who said so did say "more or less", but I thought I would point out an effective game difference between the two gun types. Either type will penetrate the turret front of such Shermans, or side and rear, incidentally. (W)+ armor was more common than the "jumbo" in the strict sense. It is a more common type one might see as the "point" tank of a platoon, than the historically quite rare, true "jumbos". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 JasonC, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But I am talking about a loose screw over here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, you are (for the most part) talking about nails. You only think they are screws. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A new rariety system is fine, well and good, as I stated. But it does not make everything into a nail, no matter how things first appear to the proud possessor of a fine new hammer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I asked you what the goal of tweaking points was. You had said it wasn't to dissuade purchasing decisions, yet you continue to discuss this in terms of one side being able to purchase X vs Y on the other side. So if you aren't talking about influencing purchasing choices/decisions, what are you talking about? I have asked this before but you have not directly answered this question. Through your examples you have indirectly answered it, and I see very clearly that you *are* talking about changes to influence purchasing choices/decisions. And this is the *only* thing Rarity is designed to do. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But nobody wins CM games all out of proportion to random chance, by buying lots of Pumas. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> On the whole? Perhaps this is correct (which further puts a dent in your argument that the pricing is unfair on the whole, BTW). But I bet that there are plenty a game out there where the Allies lose a vehicle worth far more than the Puma to the latter's 50mm gun. Yet the Allied vehicle was as common as dirt and the Puma should not be seen but in one out of a thousand battles. Maybe it causes the game to be lost for the Allies, maybe not. That isn't the point any more than someone playing with SMG troops. I'm sure plenty of good players have beat the snot out of guys playing with SMG units. So whether you are talking Pumas or SMG units, you are talking about Rarity. Even if you don't understand that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Are MG42s better or worse than BARs? Much better. SMGs better or worse than rifles? For almost all infantry work, and counting ammo limitations, the SMGs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, you are choosing to see only those factors you wish to. The US squads have THREE more men that the German ones. You offhandedly dismiss this factor, but we don't. There is a BIG difference between losing 3 men in a 12 man squad vs. losing 3 men in a 9 man squad. So even if the totals for each side come out even, unit for unit the German Squads are inherently more brittle. The other big factor you gloss over is that US forces don't have the crappy Kar98k or Enfields. They have the 8 shot, semi auto Garand. Arguably the best battle rifle of all times. It was still in service 10 years later too. If SMGs were so superior, why is it that the SMG was *not* chosen as the primary weapon for all infantry forces? Availability? No, not even during the war (and certainly not for the US after the war). Even the Germans and Soviets, who used such forces regularly, saw that they were speciality troops. They could do some things better, and many things not as well. That is why no modern army uses SMGs or Rifles for their every day soldier. Instead, they use a weapon, which the Germans pioneered, that combines the best of both worlds for the most part. You can ignore this real world knowledge, and testimonials from people that acknowledge their limitations (both German and Allied players) if you like. We had a HUGE discussion about the price of squads a long while back. Some people thought like you in the beginning, but a careful and unbiased look showed that the prices were fair. Or at least close enough. If you are talking about adding one or two points to the cost of an SMG unit I say why bother? BTW, there are some game system tweaks we are going to do for CM2 that will make SMG units less effective than they are in CM1. This has nothing to do with prices, rather some other things that have more to do with speed of advance and suppressing fire. So again... we take a Big Picture look at things and see a totally different set of solutions. You think tweaking a point here or there is going to make some sort of difference, we think it will make nothing but headaches. Instead, we looked for the core reasons why things like SMG units are too common and perhaps too effective, and have developed new features/tweaks to address the problem. We don't go for the bandaid approach when there is a need for stitches. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[Does the US get an advantage in numbers to counteract these advantages? No not really. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is your opinion. It is my opinion that the headcount advantage is significant. Remember, this is all personal opinions here, no matter how badly you want to think there is some sort of mystical Truth to be found. There isn't. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What is the effect on all of this of my SMG and faust cost proposals? Well, the SMGs are going to increase the cost of the German force above by ~21 points (2/sqd + 1/HQ), while the fausts will cost 9 more. The total German force above then costs 309 (103 per platoon), or 41 points more than the US player spent. That is roughly 1/3rd of a platoon. Depending on how the US player spends it, he might get an edge of 12-15% in numbers of men (12% - 2 MMGs for 36 points; 15% - 1/3rd of a platoon for 40) for the same amounts spent on infantry. With a corresponding narrowing of the firepower gap, in addition.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, this is based on YOUR opinions of what is worth what. I disagree quite strongly with your logic. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The next effect of a whole change in prices might be, in a typical medium scenario, that the US side gets 1 more tank or 1 more infantry platoon, or the Germans 1 less. Or, it might be that the odds are the same as now, but the German player takes plain vanilla infantry. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Once again, you are talking about what Rarity is designed to fix. If you want to make the player pay extra for rather rare troops (and the SMG units were in fact rare), or to in some way be directed towards buying "vanilla infantry", that is what Rarity is there for. I will say this again, even though you are apparently not listening... You can not affect the kinds of changes you are advocating with a static pricing system like what CM1 has. Impossible. We could tweak the numbers every day for 6 months and we would not make a dent into any of the situations you are talking about. Not even a dent. A Rarity system, on the other hand, fixes ALL of the potential abusive situations in a fair and logical way. You have yet to show me a single example that won't be fixed by Rarity, but I could probably list you a hundred that will (including all that you have mentioned). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If it were merely that everyone wanted German toys, then fewer players would play more games as the Allies against many playing Germans, but the won-loss records would remain about the same. What actually happens is most players are perfectly willing to play either side, but most players have a better W-L record with the Germans, and the cumulative W-L for same situation (attacker, meeting, defender) are heavily weighted toward better showings for the guys in grey. When computer-picked forces are used, this tendency declines somewhat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What evidence do you have to support this? IIRC the win/loss records for ladders is about even for German and Allied, which pretty much shoots down this line of argument. Your assumption is that players pick the Germans because they have better pricing. Hogwash. I have already pointed out the flaws in your theory and you have not presented anything to counter it. You have your own personal conjecture, based on your own personal thinking. Sorry, but it doesn't extend out to the masses. The average gamer prefers to play the Germans more often than the Allies, no matter what game you care to choose. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why? Because the things that are bargains - thick front armor plates, automatic weapon infantry, the cheapest light guns - are more readily available in more capable and numerous forms for the Germans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Skipping over the assumption you make about things being cheaper unit for unit, you are correct that the Germans have more "readily avilable" means of killing Allied vehicles. This is historically correct. However, what is not historically correct in CM1 is the ability of the German player to have these whenever he wants and in whatever quantities he can afford. Rarity fixes this. So once again, Rarity is the key to solving the problems as they do in fact exist. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thus a simple version would be - "Fionn's rule of 76, no AA halftracks, nothing else" and a valid response would be "accepted, I will take the Germans". Or the challenger could say "rule of 75, infantry types pay +2 pure SMG / squad, +1 some SMG, +1 faust 60, +2 faust 100". And the other could reply, "Accepted, I will take the Allies". Or instead the challenged in the last case could say, "no, let's use rule of 76 and normal infantry prices." In that case, though, he forfeits choice of side back to the challenger, who could reply "OK, but in that case I take the Germans."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have no idea why you can't see this... RARITY does this inherently. Using Rarity the Allies would largely be limited to 75s for the average game, the Germans wouldn't be likely to get AA halftracks without sacrificing a tank or company of infantry. And because the US infantry forces consist of only one core type, they will always get their 12 man, semi-full auto units with rifle grenades. The Germans, on the other hand, will most likely have to take their 9 man squads with 5 or 6 of the men firing Kar98s. And it all happens NATURALLY and FAIRLY. In conclusion (as I have no more time to argue with you), what you are advocating is a changes which are based on your own personal opinions. They are not based on incontrovertible logic as you would like to think, no more than our system is. From what I have seen here, it is my opinion that your logic is often flawed, or in some way not broad enough. So not only are the changes you are proposing questionable in terms of logic andfairness, but they will *not* affect any meaningful change on the way the game is played. Period. So why bother spending countless hours making price changes over and over and over again for the life of the game when it will not affect anything? You don't think this is the case, perhaps, but we do. Since we are the ones that make games (in particular this one, which people seem to like pretty well ), I think we have a better handle on how game mechanics work. I'm not saying you are a moron or are incapable of making useful suggestions. Rather I am saying that on this one issue you are not seeing the forest through the trees. You see a point tweak here or there being the cornerstone to fundamental game play changes (and if not, then what is the point?). We see point tweaks as affecting nothing unless the points are raised very high, which then effectively prices them out of play. Rarity is the big issue, and until that is addressed, there will be no progress possible on preventing out ahistorical force mixes without gentleman's agreements. You don't think so, we do. You play the game we made, we made the game you play. It matters not to me if you don't understand this now. I have tried to show you the flaws in your logic and arguments, but I have no more time to repeat myself. Perhaps when you see how things work in CM2 you will think to yourself "shoot, those guys really did know what they were talking about. Maybe I should have taken a step back and seen that they really understood the core issues and the solutions". And if Rarity *doesn't* fix the kinds of problems you have mentioned, then you are invited to ask me to eat my words Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishu Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The other big factor you gloss over is that US forces don't have the crappy Kar98k or Enfields. They have the 8 shot, semi auto Garand. Arguably the best battle rifle of all times. It was still in service 10 years later too. If SMGs were so superior, why is it that the SMG was *not* chosen as the primary weapon for all infantry forces? Availability? No, not even during the war (and certainly not for the US after the war). Even the Germans and Soviets, who used such forces regularly, saw that they were speciality troops. They could do some things better, and many things not as well. That is why no modern army uses SMGs or Rifles for their every day soldier. Instead, they use a weapon, which the Germans pioneered, that combines the best of both worlds for the most part. You can ignore this real world knowledge, and testimonials from people that acknowledge their limitations (both German and Allied players) if you like.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd like to differ here a bit. Kar 98K isn't that much of a crappy rifle as you'd think of when you hear about bolt action and a semi-automatic rifle. Garand still uses same .30-06 that springfields, which still does contain alot punch for creating quite a recoil. When you hear about 'semi-automatic', you might think that you can just blast off with those, but in truth you still have bit too much recoil to do that. Although it does still have higher rate of fire than Kar 98K or Lee Enfield. What comes to accuracy, the Kar 98K is more accurate than the Garand per shot. (so if you'd be a sniper, you would probably either choose purpose made semi-automatic sniper rifle or Kar 98K rather than the Garand) In close combat, SMG is far better than a rifle, but at a distance it gets worse. In dense woods, SMG is alot better than a rifle. Though, MP43/MP44/SMG comes more handy in short distance fights, where rifles would still rule in long range and SMGs in very close combat. Ps. MP44 can be fitted with a scope without modifications to the weapon itself. Also MG42's has had scopes attached. Not to forget FG42 either. One interesting thing here is theres no rifle grenade for germans at all, which they used with Kar 98K's AND was also possible with MP44. (of course with proper grenade launcher attachment attached) Oh, by the way, M1903 Springfields are in mechanics alot similar to Kar 98, which for US armory had to pay royalties to germany. This ended when the first world war broke on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 In the SMG squad vs US rifle squad issue, my view has always been that the problem is not in the prices, but rather in the effectiveness. IMHO the SMG's are modeled overly effective in ranges of 50+ meters. Or maybe the rifles are undermodeled. :confused: But this issue has been already bebated at least as fiercely as the pricing issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 Fishu, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd like to differ here a bit. Kar 98K isn't that much of a crappy rifle as you'd think of when you hear about bolt action and a semi-automatic rifle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I should have qualified that statement. The Kar98k is a fantastic rifle, but it was (even by German standards) obsolete by at least 1940 or at the most 1941. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Although it does still have higher rate of fire than Kar 98K or Lee Enfield. What comes to accuracy, the Kar 98K is more accurate than the Garand per shot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Garand is still, overall, the better rifle. I am not sure what you mean by the Kar98k being more accurate than the Garand. At one range and under what conditions? At 500-1000m I think I would probably want to use a Kar98k, but that is not what riflemen did in combat. Snipers/sharpshooters, yes, but not the average line infantryman. So from a practical standpoint, shot for shot I'd say they were not significantly different for the standard rifleman. There is also the fact that there are three more shots available for the Garand. This means that the German soldier must load three clips for the two that a US soldier would have to load. So on balance... the Garand wins over the Kar98k hands down, especially when in under 100m or so. If you were kicking down a door which rifle would you rather have? BTW, I own both a Garand and a Kar98k, so I have a pretty good idea what each is like to shoot on a range Given a choice of which to have in battle, I would take the Garand (and a sore thumb ) any day of the week over a Kar98k or an Enfield. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(so if you'd be a sniper, you would probably either choose purpose made semi-automatic sniper rifle or Kar 98K rather than the Garand)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Although the Garand was sometimes used as a sniping rifle (they are amazingly accurate), the standard sniping rifle for WWII and after was the Springfield. The M-14 replaced the Sprinfield in this role later on. It is still highly sought after by match shooters. Cripes, a good M-14 is worth about 10 times as much as a Garand and 20 times a Kar98k <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In close combat, SMG is far better than a rifle, but at a distance it gets worse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> At any distance over 100m it doesn't even register on the scale of effectiveness. In other words, it has a steep and rapid decline in effectiveness. That is the downside. The up side, as you say, is close in fighting. That is why SMG troops are ideal for house to house figthing or combat in confined terrain/visibility (like forests or night). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Though, MP43/MP44/SMG comes more handy in short distance fights, where rifles would still rule in long range and SMGs in very close combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Correct. And that is why every modern equipped Army uses the children of the MP43/44 design, not ones of the Mauser or Thompson. The "assault rifle" is the best compromise of firepower and accuracy/range which SMGs and rifles have to offer. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ps. MP44 can be fitted with a scope without modifications to the weapon itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was also the first operational night scope equipped small arm of the war. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One interesting thing here is theres no rifle grenade for germans at all, which they used with Kar 98K's AND was also possible with MP44.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We had long debates about adding riflegrenades to German units in the 1944/45 timeframe on the Western front. Unlike the US versions, it was an either or thing. Either the rifle was set up to fire a grenade, or it was set up to fire regular ammo. You will see rifle grenades for CM2 for sure. BTW, I don't think there is much documented use of the MP44 with the riflegrenade attachement. It existed, but from what I can tell it wasn't used much if at all. MP44s themselves were fairly uncommon, with fully 2/3rds of their production never getting into the hands of troops. Got one of those warehouse specials sitting behind me (less a functional receiver ) as a matter of fact. Jarmo, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the SMG squad vs US rifle squad issue, my view has always been that the problem is not in the prices, but rather in the effectiveness. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Part of the problem is that they are being used too much, but part of the problem is that certain quirks in the game engine allow them to be used more effectively than they should be. Pricing has nothing to do with this. We have fixes already lined up for this in CM2, especially because SMG troops (Soviet specifically) will be fairly common. Steve [ 05-13-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 No doubt simulating the British tactical use of the Bren carrier is difficult without the ability to dismount the crews. This applies to a number of British units in which organisationally the carrier was part of the unit. I take it that the same principles applied to the modelling of the 3in mortar were applied to the Vickers MG since it has quite a lot of ammo and is glacially slow. Personally I always buy a carrier for these units unless I'm on the defense (and even then I often do). On the issue of simulating these kind of units without rewriting the game engine to allow specific crews to dismount I had a couple of alternative ideas. Firstly, the 3in mortar could be 'bundled' with a carrier as a specific unit. This would be fairly historically accurate and have the effect of raising the price. Alternatively a transport version of the carrier could have been put in the game. This could have say 1-2 crew, no Bren gun, and a slightly increased transport capacity. As an aside, since the British are disadvantaged in being unable to use their Bren carrier crews in a historically accurate way I have spent the last week calculating the effect of of this on the combat efficiency on a British infantry battalion. My conclusion is that the formation is undermodelled by 14.362% in CMBO compared to the historical case. My reasoning and calculations are of course rather long and essentially dull, though supported with the most pertinent examples (well those that do support them anyway). Therefore I will not post them here. However, I have just signed a publishing contract and the first of three volumes should be out soon. To summarise my conclusions: CMBO is gamey, BTS please fix or somefink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offtaskagain Posted May 14, 2001 Author Share Posted May 14, 2001 Damn, never thought my little question would make such a big discussion. One quick question in regards to the new discussion in this thread. Why isn't the Gewehr 43 modeled? 10 shot semi-auto, 450,000 made. Reportedly it was an excellent sniper rifle as well, at least the well made ones. [ 05-13-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: Damn, never thought my little question would make such a big discussion. One quick question in regards to the new discussion in this thread. Why isn't the Gewehr 43 modeled? 10 shot semi-auto, 450,000 made. Reportedly it was an excellent sniper rifle as well, at least the well made ones. [ 05-13-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They were never issued more than one or two to a squad, were they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 "You are (for the most part) talking about nails" I am not the one with the hammer, making such convenient conflations of different issues. And I find it slightly amusing that you combined in one post, after detailed examples, (1) the claim that you understand the problem I am talking about and rariety addresses it (2) that you don't understand the problem I am talking about or what I hope for from the changes and suggestions (3) a clear misunderstanding of one of my central points, coupled with the claim that it is just "my opinion" about the value of things, in a case where it is nothing but math, and (4) a dismissal of any further discussion as a waste of your time because you already understand it all. Incidentally, you also mention the SMG - rifle issue, which I will address below, and say you want non-bandaid solutions, but then fail to mention the single largest and most obvious problem with how SMGs are currently modeled. Which is ammo. More on that below. "I asked you what the goal of tweaking points was." Check. "You had said it wasn't to dissuade purchasing decisions" Check. "yet you continue to discuss this in terms of one side being able to purchase X vs Y on the other side." Check. "So if you aren't talking about influencing purchasing choices/decisions, what are you talking about?" How much you can buy. Not influencing the choice of force mix, as in "no I won't buy those I will buy these instead", but influencing the *game balance* that results from those decisions, including not only the items chosen, but how many of them the player can afford. Specifically, when somebody chooses to spend X points on SMG infantry, he gets 4 platoons instead of 5, or 5 instead of 6. Not to dissuade him from buying them. But to better balance the two sides chances when he does. I said "nobody wins CM games all out of proportion to random chance, by buying lots of Pumas." You replied with a question - "On the whole?" Answer, yes on the whole. Pumas are rare. They are not particularly effective for the price. Buying more of them that would be historically justified may result in unhistorical battles. A good reason to have a rariety system to fix that. Fine. But buying Pumas does not win CM games, because they are not particularly mispriced. They are rarer, not far more effective for the points. You want to pretend those two things - effectiveness for the points, and rariety - are the same issue or are closely related issues. But they simply aren't. Some of the most effective items in CM for the price, today, are items that were historically rather common. Certainly nothing like as rare as Pumas. You can buy a force full of rare things and get a crappy force. You can buy a force full of pretty common things and get an excellent force. Rariety and the play-balance fairness of pricing are two different things. Do they overlap in some cases? Sure, like Tiger Is, which are both cheap for their effectiveness and were historically rare. But 20mm AA was not rare, and it is very cheap for its effectiveness. I understand that you have worked up a wonderful new rariety system for CM2, and I am glad you have. But that hammer will deal with ahistorical fights based on overuse of rare items. That is not the same issue are *play balance* effects based on overuse of underpriced items. The issues are in fact tangential to one another. The overlap between them may create some appearences of similarity. Thus my warning, that not everything is a nail despite the fact that you are the proud possessors of a shiny new hammer. You say "whether you are talking Pumas or SMG units, you are talking about Rarity" 20mm FLAK, VG pattern infantry, all German infantry types with 2 LMGs per squad, Jadgpanzers, Hetzers, 75mm infantry guns, German HMG teams, British on map 3" mortars, Brit MMG carriers, Brit Sherman Firefly and Achilles TDs, 120mm and 4.2" mortar FOs, M8-HMC and bazooka teams - does that read like a list of the rarest items in the late war? Is it, for instance, anything like this list - Jadgpanthers, Pumas, Churchill AVREs, Sherman Jumbos, Pershings, King Tigers, SS Armored Panzergrenadiers, 88mm PAK, and 8" artillery? The first are combat power bargains in CM today. The second are just rare, and many of them are overpriced or fairly priced. Next, you missed my point about numbers in the VG vs. US rifle example. You still compare squad to squad, and think the US has a big numbers edge to make up for his deficit in automatic weapons. But you don't get a squad of each, for the same price. When the Germans and the US spend the same points on infantry, the US gets 2 or 3 platoons to the VGs 3 or 4, depending on things like zooks needed for the US. The match up that is equal *cost* is *not* one platoon with 8 man squads but SMGs, against another with 12 man squads and M-1 rifles. It is 3 of the former against 2 of the latter plus 2 zooks, which is *no difference* in total numbers of men (84 each). At best, it is a marginal extra amount of men with less AT ability (3 platoons vs. 4, 120 vs. 112 men, w/ 10-15 rifle grenades vs. 15-20 fausts). Why is this point so hard to see? It doesn't matter what you get per squad, because you are not limited in the number of squads you can buy. It matters what you get *per point*, because points are the budget constraint that determine the size of the infantry component of your force. This is not "my opinion". It is not a statement about lack of importance of numbers. It is a statement about lack of numbers, for the price spent. Plain US infantry does get far fewer automatic weapons than the German infantry types. They do not get larger numbers of men for the same points spent "because they have big squads", because they do not get as many platoons as the VG do. Then you say "even if the totals for each side come out even, unit for unit the German Squads are inherently more brittle" It is not an advantage to have fewer targets breaking and getting suppressed more easily. It would be an advantage to have more resilent squads because you had more overall men, e.g. 6 vs. 6 squads and yours bigger. But 6 12 man squads against 9 8 man squads, the former will lose consistently. Why? They get suppressed, and some shooters are left unsuppressed on the other side, and their fire ascendency results in less fire taken by their "mates", and thus less suppression, and the fire ascendency snowballs. The effect is well known to good players. "US forces have the 8 shot, semi auto Garand. Arguably the best battle rifle of all times." Indeed. And what are the CM ratings for this weapon? 10-7-3-1 at the different range windows. And what are the CM ratings for an MP40? 36-9-1/2-0. The MP40 is superior out to beyond 100 meters. The M-1 is superior only at ranges so long, that its total firepower is 3-5. At those ranges, all the M-1s in a US squad have about the same firepower as 1 LMG-42. Can squads in CM sit down at 250 yards and blast units out of cover? No. They run out of ammo first. And here we get to the primary problem, which you didn't mention in your discussion of closing and such, with the way SMGs are currently modeled in CM. Not only do they get superior firepower at 100 yards. But they get just as many shots with 3.6 times the firepower of semi-auto rifles in close. For all the world as though the men were carrying a 20-30 round clip for every 5-8 rounds the US squad carried (that is, ~4 times the ammo load); or alternately, as though SMGs achieved their greater firepower by greater accuracy at close range instead of greater ammo expenditure. The real edge of the M-1 was that you could afford to plink at 250 yards, because the ammo expenditure involved in slow aimed shots was inconsiderable. The ammo expenditure would increase at shorter ranges, of course. But nothing like the ammo expenditure of an SMG. Since each rounds was delivered more accurately, and similar amounts of ammo could be carried, if two sides each fired off all their ammo and at similar ranges, the M-1s would get more hits. But this effect does not appear in CM. M-1s run out of ammo exactly as fast at MP40s, while putting out less firepower over their whole "ammo-load-life". When armies avoided the SMG model in later wars, it was because of range to some extent of course, but even more so because of ammo expenditure. The US developed the 3-round burst select fire, instead of full auto, for the same reason. And the lighter 5.56mm cartridge, to enable men to carry larger ammo loads into combat. The principle advantage of rifles is greater accuracy, which is important compared to just throwing more lead, because it enables a man to put down more enemy before running out of bullets. But in the CM ammo system, this difference is simply not present. Every squad gets 40 shots, and a shot at medium range with 3 firepower from a Garand, uses up as much of its total lifetime firepower as a shot at short range with 36 firepower from an MP40. The incentive created by this ammo system is to avoid wasting shots at long range and long firepower numbers, in favor of closing and expending the limited available ammo at the close ranges that enable it to do the most damage. In fact, it is well known to experienced CM players - defenders especially, facing odds - that extensive fire at long range is the quickest route to defeat, through lack of ammo. So, if you want stitches I suggest not merely that other fine hammer, revisions to rules about closing, but also revisions to the abstract squad ammo system. Which is too forgiving to automatic weapons that burn ammo like kindling, and not kind enough to rifles that achieve a more accurate delivery of the available rounds. As in, rifle armed squads get 60 ammo, SMG squads get 20. Then if all shots were fired, the delivered firepower match-up would look like 36-9-1/2-0 vs. 30-21-9-3. Or in other words, the M-1s could do at 250 yards before running out, what MP40s can do at 100 yards. And at 100 yards they could do more than twice as much as the MP40s, though not do it quite as fast. If the numbers seem too wide, give the SMGs 25 rounds (like LMG teams) and the rifles 50. "Some people thought like you in the beginning, but a careful and unbiased look showed that the prices were fair. Or at least close enough." No one buys the vanilla German infantry in competitive play. Some prefer SMGs, and some prefer the 2 LMG infantry types that include about half automatic weapons in the whole squad. This is not a sign of the prices fully reflecting the differences in capabilities. Yet the vanilla German squads have more automatic weapon firepower than the vanilla Allied squads (better LMG, and a second SMG). The reason should be obvious enough after the above. These types effectively carry more ammo, since they get the firepower increases that reflect faster (but less accurate) firing, while still having the same 40 shots as the rifle infantry types. I said about the overall effect of my proposed price changes "The net effect of a whole change in prices might be, in a typical medium scenario, that the US side gets 1 more tank or 1 more infantry platoon, or the Germans 1 less." Notice, this is about *play balance*. I am not trying to "direct" the player to choose "vanilla infantry", although he can do that if he likes. I am trying to ensure that if he takes this or that type with superior abilities, that he does not also get it so cheaply, and thus get so much of it, that his opponent has no offsetting advantage in return. Whether those offsetting advantages are numbers, or more teams he can afford, or an extra tank - whatever. I am not trying to make the players' purchasing decisions for them - last thing on my mind. We can get that now by having the computer do the buying. The idea is to allow the players to choose their force, and still get balanced winning chances out of it for both sides. Which requires prices that reflect not historical rariety only, but combat effectiveness to a tolerable degree of accuracy. When prices do reflect combat ability to a tolerable degree of accuracy, choosing particularly cheap "bargains" in the existing price set does not multiply combat effectiveness, because there are not large effects available from focusing on just the bargains. And incidentally, it also increases the available range of choice a player can make as to his force mix, without sacrificing potential winning-chance advantages. For most prices this is already true. The problem is that player choice of forces lets them focus on the few important cases where it isn't, and avoid the fairly priced items, at least for a large portion of their total budget. Thus, 120mm mortars are 1 minute faster in response, so they are cheap and a bargain. If someone buys just those, it does not help that the 105 and 150 modules are properly priced. Or he takes only Mot. Pz Gdr or VG infantry. Then it does not matter that the pioneers are expensive or the rifle-44s fairly priced relative to the Allied types. Or he buys Hetzers and Jadgpanzers, and it does not matter than Pz IVs are reasonably priced. It is not that the items so chosen are particular rare ones. Buying 12 20mm Flak can realistically reflect a whole light AA battalion being present. The issue is that the whole light AA battalion costs only as much as 2 US infantry platoons, whereas the combat effect of so many effective small guns is much greater. Next, you said that even if you tweak prices for 6 months you would not make a dent in what I am talking about. I think I can show that is not the case. Take the 20mm FLAK. Suppose the price is 30. Now the German gets only 8 of them, or the US gets a 3rd platoon or an extra Sherman to try to deal with them. The balance would be closer. Nobody has to change their purchase habits an iota, in terms of the *types* of units they want. They just face the budget constraint, and they can't have *as many* of such items without giving something up, or fighting in a larger battle where their enemy gets something extra. "A Rarity system, on the other hand, fixes ALL of the potential abusive situations in a fair and logical way." Here again the man with a hammer thinks everything is a nail. I do not doubt in the least that it will fix *some*. It will fix gamey use of Tiger Is, along with gamey use of Pumas (though the latter hardly effects play balance much). But it will not fix "all", because there simply is no necessary relation between how *rare* something was, and its effects on play-balance, at current prices. If US rifle platoons, an incredibly common item, cost 2 points, you would have one monster play balance problem, without it having anything to do with rariety. The extreme example illustrates the general point - the mispricing of an item has play balance effects, whether the mispriced item is common or rare. They are distinct issues, confused by slight overlap, and by the propensity for folks with shiny new hammers to think everything a nail. "What evidence do you have to support this?" Ask anybody. Read the board. People can indeed lose with the Germans, and it is especially easy if they are defending. But same scenario position (attacking, meeting, or defending), it is notorious that it is easier to win with the Germans. I am not making it up. They have better infantry and better armor, cheap, and the prices are not such that the Allies get full compensation by having enough more of either. Ask any experienced player about the use of light guns in large numbers. Or automatic weapon German infantry types, where the only dispute you will find is 2 LMG fans vs. SMG fans. And incidentally, my standard way of implimenting a use of these factors as the Germans does not rely at all on rare German vehicles. In fact on defense it doesn't rely on German vehicles at all, because I do it with the "infantry" force type. A reinforced company supported by off-board mortars and covered by mines and in a "reverse slope" deployment (to the extend possible), then supported by numerous guns and teams - PAK and FLAK, infantry guns and HMG teams. I can stick quite close to historical force mixes and still buy virtually all bargain items, because there are enough items to choose between to fill needed roles, so the mispriced ones can be picked out. "RARITY does this inherently. Using Rarity the Allies would largely be limited to 75s" You don't seem to have understood the purpose of my bidding example. It was *not* to exclude rare things. It is an *interplay* between the two competitors over the play-balance of the game conditions. Everyone knows that Fionn's 75 favors the Allies. Everyone knows that his 76 comparatively favors the Germans. The point of my example is that it showed two people *bargaining* over *play-balance*. The point of which is not merely to favor the Allies or to favor the Germans. It is, instead, to create a more even game. Notice, I didn't say "realistic", I said *even*. Both worthy goals, but not the same one. The way in which my bidding example tries to improve play-balance is by the principle of "you cut, I choose". Someone will say which conditions are used, with both sides knowing full well that tilting this way favors the Germans, and that way the Allies. They bargain over how far to tilt, which way. The fellow that accepts the other's proposal on that subject, then gets *his* choice of the side he will play. Thus any incentive to tilt toward a side because one expects to play it is eliminated. The proposals will instead reflect the honest assessments the proposer has, about play balance. In your case, because you'd turn down all of my proposals, I'd get the Germans and would get to show you what I mean - LOL. The benefit of a bidding system is that it is not in the least based on just my opinions, contrary to your closing comments. Anyone can propose any price revisions he likes - as long as he is willing to let the other fellow choose which side to play, if he accepts them. Anyone's opinions can be heard. They can vary from game to game. Everyone has an incentive to propose fairly. And everyone who proposes a poor price set will have a chance to learn about its flaws by having its holes used against him. Including those who agree with the default price set. Last you ask, "why bother?" Well, right now people are letting the computer pick the forces because that is more fair than exploiting the known gaps in the existing price system. So the first part of "why", is "to restore player choice in force mix". It is true that such choice is available now, if the players agree to pick their own. There, the gain is "greater play balance", the absence of which is currently pushing people toward the previous, computer-choice option. And a third reason is "to allow greater variety in forces chosen, without sacrifice of game chances". Because right now, many players avoid certain force types or stick to certain others, because they enjoy winning and correctly think that certain choices will reduce (e.g. halftracks) or increase (e.g. heavy mortar FOs) their chances in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 Panzerwarfer42: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why isn't the Gewehr 43 modeled? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was a great weapon indeed, after they got the kinks out of it with the G41. The reason why it isn't modeld in CM1 is that few were used on fronts other than the Eastern Front. The problem for us is that if we introduced it to a squad, then all squads of that type will have at least one. This would be too many, and therefore not realistic. They weren't even issued in more than one or two per squad even on the Eastern Front, and even then there were never enough to go around. I don't know if 450k is the right production figure, but for 2 years of warfare for an army of Germany's size... that ain't much. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 JasonC: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And I find it slightly amusing that you combined in one post, after detailed examples, (1) the claim that you understand the problem I am talking about and rariety addresses it (2) that you don't understand the problem I am talking about or what I hope for from the changes and suggestions (3) a clear misunderstanding of one of my central points, coupled with the claim that it is just "my opinion" about the value of things, in a case where it is nothing but math, and (4) a dismissal of any further discussion as a waste of your time because you already understand it all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are ammused because you are reading what you want to read, not what I wrote. To readdress the four points you appear to have seen: 1 & 2. I told you that your conflicting statements were confusing me. On the one hand you are saying that changing prices is not supposed to change the outcome of purchasing, and then you go on to describe exactly that. Your latest post has cleared that up, but I still feel your thinking is muddled as to what your suggestions will do or not do towards the goal you appear to be after. 3. Math means absolutely nothing without interpretation. I have four cows you have three goats, but what does that mean? You interpret the same numbers differently than we do, so therefore the conclusions are opinions. Please, for the sake of all that is rational, stop trying to convince me that there is some Absolute Truth to be found by distilling some tealeaves (I mean numbers). 4. I understand the real issues that need to be fixed. What I think you are talking about (as best as I can wade through) will be fixed with Rarity. Or put another way, what you are proposing will NOT achieve the goal you say you wish to reach. I had asked: "So if you aren't talking about influencing purchasing choices/decisions, what are you talking about?" <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How much you can buy. Not influencing the choice of force mix, as in "no I won't buy those I will buy these instead", but influencing the *game balance* that results from those decisions, including not only the items chosen, but how many of them the player can afford. Specifically, when somebody chooses to spend X points on SMG infantry, he gets 4 platoons instead of 5, or 5 instead of 6. Not to dissuade him from buying them. But to better balance the two sides chances when he does.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is what Rarity is all about. Creating a better balance between the two sides. You obviously don't agree, or understand, this. Fine, but that is what Rarity is designed to do. If you want that SMG unit it is going to cost you more because it was less common than the Vanilla flavored Rifle infantry. So you can buy that SMG unit but you will only get 4 platoons instead of 5 of regular infantry. Notice that I used your very same example. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But buying Pumas does not win CM games, because they are not particularly mispriced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is *NO* magic unit in Combat Mission. I think it looks like you feel there is, but I do not think the evidence supports that. Please state, exactly, what combination of German unit purchases will assure the German side of victory in general, all else being equal. If you mention SMG units, I will remind you that there are other reasons why they are probably too effective. Price has nothing to do with it, other than the fact that too many people are buying them from a Rarity standpoint. These problems are going to be addressed with game engine changes, not point tweaks. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Certainly nothing like as rare as Pumas. You can buy a force full of rare things and get a crappy force. You can buy a force full of pretty common things and get an excellent force. Rarity and the play-balance fairness of pricing are two different things.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Basic cost is obviously important to get right. That is a no brainer. I mean, otherwise why have a pricing system at all? One alternative is to have a "you can purchase x number of whatever you like" system. So the fair pricing thing is a basic concept and obvious that I take it as a given. I see now you weren't, and that is part of the problem with debate. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Do they overlap in some cases? Sure, like Tiger Is, which are both cheap for their effectiveness and were historically rare. But 20mm AA was not rare, and it is very cheap for its effectiveness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is your opinion. I would welcome my enemy to waste points on a buttload of 20mm AA guns and purchase nothing in its place. Four 20mm Flak guns would mean 3 less HMG42s or 3 less 81mm mortars or 1 less 105 Howitzer or one less Pak40. And that is just comparing the points used for Support weapons.. I welcome such a bad purchasing decision. 20mm Flak guns are annoying to infantry in the wrong circumstances and light vehicles (which I don't purchase), but they are very easy to knock out. Even a Stuart can take care of them without much difficulty, not to mention MGs or other small arms. So once again, your opinion comes up one way, mine comes up another way. Rarity will also make some of these "common" things more expensive because they were not as common in the frontline as they were in total. So a 20mm or 37mm Flak gun in CM2 will likely be more expensive on average. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I understand that you have worked up a wonderful new rariety system for CM2, and I am glad you have. But that hammer will deal with ahistorical fights based on overuse of rare items. That is not the same issue are *play balance* effects based on overuse of underpriced items. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I said above, this is a given. And this gets us right back to me disagreeing that you have the magic answer to the prices of units, or that a tweak of a point here or there actually means anything in a real sense (i.e. in terms of play balance). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Next, you missed my point about numbers in the VG vs. US rifle example. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope, I got it. You didn't get mine.... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why is this point so hard to see? It doesn't matter what you get per squad, because you are not limited in the number of squads you can buy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But it does matter how many men are in one squad when you are out in a battle actually using the units. A 12 man squad is far less brittle than a 8 or 9 man squad. There is NO room for arguing this fact. It is how the game system works. But then you try to play around with math to prove your point that I am wrong here: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But 6 12 man squads against 9 8 man squads, the former will lose consistently. Why? They get suppressed, and some shooters are left unsuppressed on the other side, and their fire ascendancy results in less fire taken by their "mates", and thus less suppression, and the fire ascendancy snowballs. The effect is well known to good players.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It depends on the circumstances, but yes the greater number of tactical units does have an inherent advantage if they significantly outnumber the other player *and* that player doesn't have a good plan to attack/defend, which including attritting the superior number of enemy tactical units (or bypassing them or whatever) before they get into critical positions. But you are playing loose and fast with the math, so your example doesn't help your case. We aren't talking about a 3:2 advantage for the Germans at the same price, as you have so carefully calculated. Taking the SMG units appear to think are one of only two German Infantry units in the game, I found that you can purchase the following point equal forces: Germans: 3xSMG Platoon Headcount - 84 Total Points - 279 Americans: 2xRifle Platoons 2xMMGs Headcount - 80 (infantry) or 96 (infantry + MMG crews) Total Points - 276 The headcount is 1:0.85 with just infantry in favor of Germans, 0.87:1 in favor of Americans with total headcounts calculated. The number of extra tactical units available to the Germans is exactly ONE. ONE extra tactical unit. Where is this 3:2 advantage you cite in your example above? It isn't there. In short, I don't understand your basis for the big chip on your shoulder. All things being equal, I would take the American force any day of the week. It is inherently more flexible in a real battlefield situation, in terms of possible use, and each unit is less brittle. Just for giggles, I took the above force, and lined the sides up against each other without any thought (i.e. MMGs right up there with the infantry). The distance apart was 3 meters. When both forces were not in foxholes, the Germans nicely whipped the Americans on the first turn. When the Germans were in foxholes, not surprisingly the same result happened. And I would expect this, since the SMG units have much more firepower to throw out *and* are at their best possible range (i.e. close enough to unload at max FP, not close enough to go into Hand to Hand combat, where 12 man units hold a big edge) in the best possible terrain (open). However, when the Americans were in foxholes... oh-oh... guess who got slaughtered? Go on... guess? Yup, the Germans. Imagine that. You want to know why? The German units couldn't stand taking casualties. They folded up pretty quick after 3 or so hits, while the US units just kept plugging away. This was really a stupid test, but it did show that superior firepower does not necessarily equate into automatic victory. Just trying to prove that Jason's claim of major inbalance is overblow in several ways. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not only do they get superior firepower at 100 yards. But they get just as many shots with 3.6 times the firepower of semi-auto rifles in close... But in the CM ammo system, this difference is simply not present. Every squad gets 40 shots, and a shot at medium range with 3 firepower from a Garand, uses up as much of its total lifetime firepower as a shot at short range with 36 firepower from an MP40. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bzzzt. Sorry, incorrect. First of all, ammo expenditures are not linear. At longer ranges only a partial ammo point is expended per "shot", depending on how many units are firing. Otherwise the MG42 would burn through the entire squad's ammo would be gone in no time. So the US Rifle units can shoot at more distant targets without burning up ammo at a fast rate, therefore they are useful at 100+ ranges. But the big mistake you are making is not factoring in what the average soldier had for ammo. A SMG man carried 210 rounds into battle as standard loadout. That is one mag in the gun, six in two pouches. By contrast, a Kar98k man carried 65 rounds into battle as standard loadout. That is five rounds in the gun, 30 in each of two pouches. I forget what a Garand took into battle, but I think it was about 102 rounds. So, assuming 40 ammo points per unit.... 1 Point of SMG ammo = roughly 5.25 rounds 1 Point of Kar98K ammo = about one round 1 Point of Garand ammo = about 2.55 rounds The ratio of SMG to Garand ammo expenditure per ammo point used is 2:1, not 1:1 as you assume. Firepower is a product of many factors, including the number of rounds per ammo point used. It also factors things in like rate of fire, size of the round, ability to spray, etc. So I don't see any problem with either the firepower ratings or the ammo usage. An SMG at close range is a bastard of a weapon compared to even a Garand, and the ammo usage (although certainly abstracted) is not out of line like you suggest it is. As I have repeatedly pointed out, your infallible math isn't if you have some of the facts wrong and/or are ignoring/downplaying factors we think are significant. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The incentive created by this ammo system is to avoid wasting shots at long range and long firepower numbers, in favor of closing and expending the limited available ammo at the close ranges that enable it to do the most damage. In fact, it is well known to experienced CM players - defenders especially, facing odds - that extensive fire at long range is the quickest route to defeat, through lack of ammo. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which mirrors real warfare quite nicely. I don't see why you think this fair reflection upon battlefield tactical reality is a problem. It is also true that if you sit in one spot long enough someone is going to figure out how to clobber you with something bigger. So if units use SOME ammo at long ranges they can fix the enemy long enough to pummel them before they get in too close where things like mortars can not be used effectively for fear of causing casualties. This is the backbone of Combined Arms thinking. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No one buys the vanilla German infantry in competitive play.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bold statement. So, have you polled every single German player? I use vanilla infantry, so I guess I don't count? Now, back to Rarity... Rarity will curb the overuse of specialty infantry formations because they are, by definition, rarer. And yes, that DOES go for the SMG units that you are using as the prime example of how screwed up the purchasing system is. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Next, you said that even if you tweak prices for 6 months you would not make a dent in what I am talking about. I think I can show that is not the case. Take the 20mm FLAK. Suppose the price is 30. Now the German gets only 8 of them, or the US gets a 3rd platoon or an extra Sherman to try to deal with them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who the heck would be stupid enough to buy 8 Flak guns? That is about a dumb of a decision as I could think of. And since that is the basic assumption you are using for your "Play Balancing" argument, I will kick the legs right out from under that. OK, so we change the price of the 20mm Flak to be 30 (just because that is what you want, not because there is any rational reason for it that can't be challenged). So now if I am the Germans and I buy ONE of them I am now have 9 points less to spend. Whooooopty-do. See, your basic assumption is that a small price change like this, when even you admit that "bargain" units are the exception rather than the rule, add up to a hill of beans. I say they do not. 9 points certainly could mess up another purchase decision, but that is so conditional that it isn't possible to say if this is meaningful or not. I mean, sometimes I don't spend all my points, so perhaps the extra 9 means NOTHING. Oh sure, if I am an idiot I might buy be able to now by 8x20mm Flak guns instead of 10, but what is wrong with this picture? That means my ENTIRE support weapons are Flak guns that even one enemy AFV can knock out with impunity. I would never trade in all my support weapons for Flak guns no matter what the prices were. I want mortars, AT guns, HMGs, and other things that are actually useful in a real battle. So I submit to you that you are throwing up Red Herrings. And when you aren't, I am sure Rarity would fix the situation up very nicely. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ask anybody. Read the board. People can indeed lose with the Germans, and it is especially easy if they are defending. But same scenario position (attacking, meeting, or defending), it is notorious that it is easier to win with the Germans. I am not making it up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I hate to be blunt but... YES YOU ARE making this up. It is your OPINION, and it is one that I do not think is grounded in anything but your imagination. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Or automatic weapon German infantry types, where the only dispute you will find is 2 LMG fans vs. SMG fans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I have said before, this is a Rarity issue for the most part. People should not be ABLE to even argue this because these units would not be generally affordable due to being rare. And as I have stated before, there are some game play situations that favor SMGs if used correctly. This has nothing to do with pricing and will only be fixed with changes to the game engine. I had already asked you "What evidence do you have to support this?", in regards to your "facts" concerning how easy it is to win as the Germans vs. the Allies, especially when on the attack. You replied: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ask anybody. Read the board. People can indeed lose with the Germans, and it is especially easy if they are defending. But same scenario position (attacking, meeting, or defending), it is notorious that it is easier to win with the Germans. I am not making it up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But you are. Check out The Rugged Defense League ( http://www.Rugged-Defense.nl/ ) for an incontrovertible piece of evidence to counter your personal assumptions. Last time I checked the Allied/Axis win:loss rating was about a dead heat between the two. If, as you say, the Germans have such a HUGE advantage, how can you explain the results of tabulated competition? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Last you ask, "why bother?" Well, right now people are letting the computer pick the forces because that is more fair than exploiting the known gaps in the existing price system. So the first part of "why", is "to restore player choice in force mix". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which is the ONLY purpose of the Rarity system. I repeat, the ONLY purpose. The only effective way to restore choice is to weed out the player's ability to choose a particular force structure, which he has learned to exploit in some way (which might, but might not, have to do with purchasing prices), and to make the choices that are available variable (or at not with one option) from game to game. It is impossible, absolutely impossible, to allow complete freedom of choice *and* to "restore balance" to the game without Rarity. Why? Because it is impossible to come up with a single price that reflects the worth of a particular unit in any and all situations. -------- OK, here follows a key point that you have so far missed and I so far haven't presented. -------- Let us assume that you CAN change the static prices to reflect YOUR opinion of what they are worth (and it is JUST your opinion, no matter how badly you wish it to be otherwise). OK, so now everything is OK, right? You have now "restored balance" to a game which before your input was one almighty big screw up. Right? Wrong. All you have done is force the people who have exploited one thing to figure out how to exploit the system in another way. OK, so maybe they can't use 10x20mm Flak guns any more. Now, thanks to your brilliant and irrefutable logic they can only purchase 8x20mm Flak guns. But what if 8 is enough to pull off whatever trick they were using before? Do you raise the price above your carefully calculated "real world value"? Or what if they only take 4x20mm Flak guns and find out that, in spite of your ability to pick magic numbers out of your head, that when combined with 3 of something else they can get an edge over the other player using a typical force? You don't think this will happen? I got news for you, it will. Amidst all the complaints that your numbers are unfair and uneven (and they will complain, trust me), the "Cherry Pickers" will be hard at work figuring out how to get an edge through careful unit selection. Give people enough time and they will find ways to exploit any static pricing system when there are no other constraints present. I put all 8 years of my professional game designing experience on the table as my bet. What can you put up and do you care to raise me on it? No system is fool proof, even if you came up with the "real value" of each and every unit (which you can not). There needs to be some other system put in place to affect change. Yes, fair pricing must be the foundation for this system, that is as true as saying the sun rises and sets. So that is not being disputed. What I am disputing is that you can come up with a better pricing system that is fairer and more realistic, which also changes the nature of how people play games to, as you put it, "restore balance". At best you will just direct people to come up with different "gamey" Cherry Picking choices. And that doesn't fix the problem you are trying to solve. OK, I have wasted FAR too much time on this. JasonC, I rarely have ever said this to anybody in the 2.5 years that I have been moderating this BBS... you are wrong. Not that you don't have a point (i.e. some prices are probably in need of a tweak, but that will always be true), but your conclusions are based on flawed logic and assumptions, and you completely don't understand why it is that Rarity is NECESSARY to "restore balance". You had your chance to prove your case, and you failed to do anything but chew up my time. I appreciate you trying to help improve the game (although I think your attitude is not the best), but you have serious blinders on. You are the one that is missing the larger points, not I. CM2 will prove that. So until then, I am withdrawing from this discussion to actually go and make the changes I have spoken about. Steve [ 05-14-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 Geez and people complain about the Peng threads chewing up 'bandwidth'. Pity the poor damn search algorithm that has to read through those posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PondScum Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 I'm holding out for the grudge match - JasonC's SMG hordes vs Steve's Garand-toting US infantry. Full AAR to be posted here. Return match to take place when CMBB goes gold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: First of all, ammo expenditures are not linear. At longer ranges only a partial ammo point is expended per "shot", depending on how many units are firing. Otherwise the MG42 would burn through the entire squad's ammo would be gone in no time. So the US Rifle units can shoot at more distant targets without burning up ammo at a fast rate, therefore they are useful at 100+ ranges. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually I'm pretty sure this doesn't work the way it's supposed to. Could it be that a byte flipped upside down somewhere? This came up some time ago in some thread. Someone tested it and found out there is no fifference in ammo spent against targets at 100 or 500 meters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishu Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 Actually I've been more cursing ammo use as an american than as germans.. So I'd think that US teams spends their ammo quicker. M1919A4 comes with supply for 65 shots, while MG42 comes with 95. I haven't seen it shooting at the targets at faster rate either, in fact just been cursing how people gets over wide open areas and MG42 keeps silent. MG's feels bit useless at a distance... I wouldn't really mind to fire up on a target at 500 meters with HMG 42, seems same as shooting for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 [posting corrected] I have checked what mortar crews are worth: 6 (maybe 7) points/man regular and 8/men veteran. Having a veteran 81mm mortar knocked out and all 6 men captured brings about 128 points. I am in a round of checks how much points special stuff like crew is worth, i.e. for artillery spotters. Anyone has something he likes me to check while I'm at it? [ 05-14-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 Steve, for what it is worth, you are only the last in a long line of people who have attempted to respond to Jason's wild imagination and penchant for cooking numbers, only to be treated at first stubbornly, then more and more petulantly as Jason's inability to see anyone's points but his own causes you more and more frustration. Please don't feel that you have anything to prove to the rest of us - or feel obligated using your precious time in order to re-explain things you have already well stated several times in the same thread. Since at this point I have a hard time seeing anyone reading through Jason's chapter-length posts, my humble suggestion to you is to let it go. You won't get the satisfaction of having Jason admit that he's wrong - only the frustration of realizing how much of your valuable time you've wasted when you could have been talking to the wall, instead. Or better, working on those Russian tanks. Perhaps one of the fellows here on the forum can come up with an online version of Advanced Designer's Notes - like an FAQ, but discussing solely and in depth some of the design issues. I had thought of doing such myself but it didn't seem right for me to presume to speak for BTS, and I haven't been here as long as some. But I am sure someone else has had the idea - perhaps even started such a project? I am sure a decent ADN could be garnered solely from your posts to this board - and would be of great assistance and interest to many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPA Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: No doubt simulating the British tactical use of the Bren carrier is difficult without the ability to dismount the crews. This applies to a number of British units in which organisationally the carrier was part of the unit. I take it that the same principles applied to the modelling of the 3in mortar were applied to the Vickers MG since it has quite a lot of ammo and is glacially slow. Personally I always buy a carrier for these units unless I'm on the defense (and even then I often do). On the issue of simulating these kind of units without rewriting the game engine to allow specific crews to dismount I had a couple of alternative ideas. Firstly, the 3in mortar could be 'bundled' with a carrier as a specific unit. This would be fairly historically accurate and have the effect of raising the price. Alternatively a transport version of the carrier could have been put in the game. This could have say 1-2 crew, no Bren gun, and a slightly increased transport capacity. As an aside, since the British are disadvantaged in being unable to use their Bren carrier crews in a historically accurate way I have spent the last week calculating the effect of of this on the combat efficiency on a British infantry battalion. My conclusion is that the formation is undermodelled by 14.362% in CMBO compared to the historical case. My reasoning and calculations are of course rather long and essentially dull, though supported with the most pertinent examples (well those that do support them anyway). Therefore I will not post them here. However, I have just signed a publishing contract and the first of three volumes should be out soon. To summarise my conclusions: CMBO is gamey, BTS please fix or somefink. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I really think that the "bundled" idea for towed units as described would go some way the handle this issue. It goes without saying that units such as 3" mortars or towed ATs, etc were deposited using a vehicle of some sort. Also, if such units are moved (beyond a certain distance) without using the bundled transport that unit should suffer an immediate ammunition penalty - casualties or no casualties. Of course, the option to purchase without transport should also remain, but the penalty should still apply. Peter [ 05-14-2001: Message edited by: IPA ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IPA: I really think that the "bundled" idea for towed units as described would go some way the handle this issue. It goes without saying that units such as 3" mortars or towed ATs, etc were deposited using a vehicle of some sort. Also, if such units are moved (beyond a certain distance) without using the bundled transport that unit should suffer an immediate ammunition penalty - casualties or no casualties. Of course, the option to purchase without transport should also remain, but the penalty should still apply. Peter [ 05-14-2001: Message edited by: IPA ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this decision should be made after solid research has been done. What was the SOP for Universal Carrier crews after they deposited the mortars and AT guns? An AT Gun is usually dug in well and camouflaged. I don't see them keeping the carrier anywhere close by, since that means extra work in camouflaging it and trying to hide it. Three inch mortars, too, were designed to be inconspicuous and their advantage was that you could put them underground and they were invisible to the enemy. Not so a carrier. Pictures I've seen of 3 inch mortars show large piles of ammo - with no sign of the carrier nearby. This isn't proof of anything, but I would suggest one needs to check the regulations, as well as first hand accounts, to see what the practice usually was. It is interesting to note that at least one Canadian battalion (the 48th Highlanders) didn't use carriers for the AT platoon - their transport was sunk on the way to Sicily, and they used 15 cwt trucks instead - and I believe continued using them in Italy. Then again, AT platoons were underemployed in Sicily due to lack of targets and enemy tanks - another battalion's AT platoon in Sicily (Carleton and York) never fired a single shot in anger during the 38 days of the campaign. In any event, my presumption is that, say, for a 3 inch mortar team, they would be deposited in a decent spot and their ammo offloaded before an action started - so penalizing them with an ammo shortage if their vehicle isn't close by would not be realistic. I wouls suspect it would have been offloaded and made ready long beforehand. If the mortar/AT Gun starts the scenario in tow or on the carrier, that would be a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPA Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I think this decision should be made after solid research has been done. What was the SOP for Universal Carrier crews after they deposited the mortars and AT guns? An AT Gun is usually dug in well and camouflaged. I don't see them keeping the carrier anywhere close by, since that means extra work in camouflaging it and trying to hide it. Three inch mortars, too, were designed to be inconspicuous and their advantage was that you could put them underground and they were invisible to the enemy. Not so a carrier. Pictures I've seen of 3 inch mortars show large piles of ammo - with no sign of the carrier nearby. This isn't proof of anything, but I would suggest one needs to check the regulations, as well as first hand accounts, to see what the practice usually was. It is interesting to note that at least one Canadian battalion (the 48th Highlanders) didn't use carriers for the AT platoon - their transport was sunk on the way to Sicily, and they used 15 cwt trucks instead - and I believe continued using them in Italy. Then again, AT platoons were underemployed in Sicily due to lack of targets and enemy tanks - another battalion's AT platoon in Sicily (Carleton and York) never fired a single shot in anger during the 38 days of the campaign. In any event, my presumption is that, say, for a 3 inch mortar team, they would be deposited in a decent spot and their ammo offloaded before an action started - so penalizing them with an ammo shortage if their vehicle isn't close by would not be realistic. I wouls suspect it would have been offloaded and made ready long beforehand. If the mortar/AT Gun starts the scenario in tow or on the carrier, that would be a different story.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually Michael, I totally agree with everything you just said. I have also seen many pictures and read first hand accounts of what you describe. Please refer back to my much earlier post (Page 1 and 2). I actually wasn't proposing an ammo penalty at the initial setup, but only if the mortar/A/T team was moved on foot. As you mentioned it appears that the ammunition would be stock piled at a prepared position, normally well concealed gun pits (given the time) and the attached transport moved out of the way (please refer to page 1 and 2). So such units would not have to able to move wholesale a great distance without leaving something behind. Not meaning to be repetitive but a 3 man mortar team would only be able to move the tube, bipod and base plate in one go. With each mortar round weighing about ten pounds, one man could perhaps carry six or seven at a time. Thus with out transport it would take a several runs to move the lot over a short distance. Steve has already explained something along the lines that there is a certain abstraction in that the attached transport element is difficult to simulate because crews cannot be separated from their vehicles. I just thought that Simon's idea of "bundled" units and an ammunition penalty if unit moves were made on foot without using transport was perhaps a solution. Peter Post Edit Note: Darn it Michael, I even used your website in my second post as a primary source! [ 05-14-2001: Message edited by: IPA ] [ 05-14-2001: Message edited by: IPA ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 Jarmo, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Someone tested it and found out there is no fifference in ammo spent against targets at 100 or 500 meters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm... crap Well, at 3am my brain obviously doesn't work so well. Yeah, what I said is wrong. It was something that we were thinking of doing but in fact never did. With a couple thousand details to keep track of, I got the way it is and could have been confused. I haven't thought about ammo usage in about a year, so it doesn't surprise me One thing that just came to my mind... and that is number of times a unit will fire at a target is dependent on range. Therefore, units will not fire as often at longer range targets than closer ones. So although there is a 1:1 ammo point drain per volly, units do not fire at distant targets as much as they do closer ones. Also, the TacAI doesn't like to engage targets that are too far out for ammo consumption reasons. But ammo usage is something that is totally independent of unit price. At least it should be. If there is a problem with using too much ammo at long ranges, then we need to tweak how the game works, now how much the units cost. Our thinking is that we will do something like double? the firepower rating for rifles and LMGs at the longer ranges (250m + ?) and further reduce the number of times fired. This will yield more effect per ammo expendature and at the same time reduce ammo point usage. However, this is something we will have to play around with to see how it works. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 Simon/IPA/Michael, Currently, the system can not handle "bundling" between Support and Vehicle units. Although it certainly is one possible solution to the problem, it involves of special casing code just for this one unit. Such effort is not the best use of our time at this point. Making an immobile 3 man mortar team can't work as such because the code doesn't support the notion that a unit can climb in and out of a vehicle yet be classified as Immobile. The code looks at this as an either or thing. Either the unit can move (at variable rate) or it can't (unless it abandons its weapon). So this is a solution that we aren't likely to go with. Making a 3 man team that starts out with too much ammo, and therefore MUST be in a set position from the start. If the player moves it, he loses all (or at least almost all) of the ammo. This presents user interface problems. There is no way to communicate to the player that this mortar team is an exception to the rule. That rule being that a team can carry what it starts out with. Also, is it fair for the mortar team to move 3m and lose all of its ammo? The system is either or. If the unit can't carry its ammo, it leaves it behind regardless of the distance. This can be a problem for any team with casualties, but it is understood that this is the case and isn't generally as serious a loss as we are talking about for the 3 man 3" team. Making the team 5 men is probably the only viable option. However, that causes two reality problems. Transport is unrealistically allowing too many men, which can cause confusion for the average player because this is the only exception. The other problem is that the player gets to have a fully functional UC and a fully functional mortar team. In reality, the UC would most likely be driven away from the zone and parked. My guess is that the driver, and perhaps the gunner, would stay with the vehicle. With every system there is bound to be some things that work better than others. The 3" mortar team is one such unit. We have already assigned it special penalties (lower headcount and the slowest movement rate) and this problem generally manifests itself only when the Brits are on the attack *and* feel they need to move the mortars without transport. But since they move so slowly, the former is not really a viable option. Steve [ 05-14-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts