Rarity System?

[Greg Scurlock]

would anyone please explain what this is? Steve mentioned it as a new feature in his update. Thanks.

[Greg Scurlock]

Sorry should have used search first. Haven't been on here for quite some time. Found what I needed.

[Mud]

Figure that it'll penalize (through higher costs) particularly bizarre force allocations. For instance, CM:BO lets you pick an all-VG SMG force, or load up on Wasps or HMCs (think somebody posted about having 18 HMCs in one battle?), Wirbelwinds, et al. It should make it somewhat harder to have outrageously selective forces unless players agree to turn the rarity stuff off. I don't know of any details that have been mentioned, 'tho.

[Herr Oberst]

Rather than having units cost only what their "combat effectiveness" data says they should cost, the rarity system, I assume, will apply cost differences to comparable "combat effective" units based on their availability.

If tank A and tank B have very similar weapons, ammo loadout, armor, etc, etc. CM:BO will have a negligible cost difference between the two.

If there were 8,000 A's built, but only 80 B's built, I would expect the cost of B to be much higher than A, possibly on a sliding scale as well.

The first B may cost 180% of what an A would cost. This reflects a general rarity without excluding a 'cool' vehicle from the mix. A second B could potentially cost 220%, and so on to keep someone from loading up on rare vehicles.

Scenario designers could still construct their vehicle mixes without regard to these costs (like modeling some actions of Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 508 or somefink) to capture some important engagements.

I would not expect to see a QB offer anyone a mix of vehicles like that though.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Herr Oberst ]</p>

[Jagdwyrm]

I thought it might resemble CC3, where you had so many pts to buy stuff and a pool to buy from with a variable %age of each type of unit based on #s produced. So you are buying 1 King tiger...2 King tigers and there isnt a 3rd. Due to pool only having 2.

[SlowMotion]

But how would this pool work in different sized QBs? Let's say 800 and 1000 point games. Would they both allow 2 KTs?

[Battlefront.com]

A Search will turn up not only the answers, but the reasoning behind them. The CC and sliding scale methods were both discussed as alternatives and we explained why we felt our system is better. In a nutshell...

You have three options:

1. No Rarity - same system as CMBO where each unit is priced according to general capabilities.

2. Fixed Rarity - base cost (as above) + penalty for how uncommon the vehicle was on the Eastern Front for that particular month. This means a long 75 Panzer IV might be quite pricey in 1942, but quite inexpensive 1944. Yes, it is possible for a unit to be priced BELOW its base cost if it is super common. However, the scale works so that discounts are small even if rarity is low, but penalties can be super high if the vehicle is very rare.

3. Variale Rarity - same as above, but there is random variation of prices. Meaning, a rare vehicle might be VERY expensive one game, only somewhat expensive in another. The more rare something is, the greater the possible discount or increase. However, you will NEVER see a situation where a very rare vehicle becomes anything but "pricey". In other words, no Jagdtigers prices at 100 points

That is basically it in a nutshell!! And yes, it applies to *all* units, from an AT Rifle to a super heavy tank to a particular infantry formation.

If that doesn't explain things, please try the Search feature on "Rarity".

Thanks,

Steve

[Iron Chef Sakai]

well in the next game i am assuming that the germans will be using many more panzerIII's/IV's and TD's, and anti tank batteries, then the King Tigers.

[Battlefront.com]

Slow Motion wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>But how would this pool work in different sized QBs? Let's say 800 and 1000 point games. Would they both allow 2 KTs? <hr></blockquote>

Depends on which Rarity, Force, and Date options you chose. If you chose Fixed Rarity, Combined Arms, and July 1944... forget about it for probably EITHER sized game Even Variable Rarity would probably rule it out for at least the 800 pointer.

Remember folks, the ENTIRE purpose of this feature is to basically stop the unrealistic overuse of uncommon stuff. That means that you will not find it economical, or even possible, to pick the rare stuff most of the time. Limiting purchase options limited is an absolute requirement for any Rarity system to work. If that is something that you don't want to deal with, then play without the Rarity feature. That is why we made it optional

Steve

[Wreck]

Steve, the use of price alone as a means to implement rarity is not an ideal system.

Assume for the moment that all the prices in CM currently are perfect. What will a cherry-picker pick? Anything; it would not matter. Now, we all know the prices are not perfect. Some units are overpriced and some under; all that means is that these are the ones avoided and picked, respectively. This is what currently cuts down on variety in competitive games. To the degree that the bargains also happen to be rare, this is a problem from the POV of historicity. But not all bargains are rare. In fact "bargainness" and rarity are quite orthogonal. There are rare bargains, and common bargains, and rare ripoffs, and common ripoffs.

Now consider what happens when you adjust prices of common and rare items. Again, assume that all prices were perfect to begin with. Then you can see that with knowledgeable players, in any price-adjustments system whichever prices are adjusted upward become ripoffs, and any adjusted downward, bargains. In the rarity-by-price system, no rare item should be chosen by a player playing to win. Common items all become bargains, and rare ones, all are overpriced.

Therefore you will see a sort of historicity overshoot. It used to be that you never saw PzIVs; they were common but not bargains. Now you will only see them. Of course, seeing only PzIVs is not as bad from the POV of historicity as seeing only Hetzers. So rarity-via-price is still an improvement. But it is still not as good as seeing a variety of things.

The second main problem, I would argue, with rarity-via-price is that you will cripple newbies in competitive play. Before, even if they didn't know much they could still pick a competitive force, since anything they picked was reasonably priced. Now it is quite possible for them to pick rare stuff, meaning overpriced stuff, thinking that the price warrants the purchase. So they lose the game versus any player who knows what is common and what is not, and pick accordingly.

Now, this second problem might be addressed by making the "base" price and the rarity-altered price both visible to the player. But the first problem is inherent in the idea of rarity-via-price.

Allow me propose an alternative system, which would work better. Call it rarity-via-availability. In RVA, prices are not changed; they reflect only in-game usefulness as they currently do. Instead, you are only allowed to buy a finite amount of any given unit. That amount is determined by its rarity factor, and the amount of points allocated to that category in the particular battle. You will only be allowed to spend a certain amount of points on each kind of item; and if that amount of points is less than the cost of the item, you cannot buy it. If the amount of points is only sufficient to buy one of that kind of item, you can only buy one.

Let's say it is a 1000 point battle, and you are allocated 250 points in tanks. PzIVs are common; their "divider" for amount allowed to spend is 1.0. That would mean there would be two PzIVs available to you. Hetzers, though, are relatively rare. Perhaps their divider is 4.0, meaning you can only spend 1/4 of the category points on them, meaning, 62 points -- so no Hetzer is available; the cost is still 83 points, but you cannot buy any.

Thus far, the results are much like those of rarity-via-price. Now look what happens when the players do a similar battle, but 2000 points.

In rarity-by-price, the smart player still buys all PzIVs. Because the Hetzers each cost 166 points (if 2x cost, say); they are not a bargain.

In rarity-by-availability, there is ONE Hetzer available, and the smart player will take it (since they are, in fact, bargains at 83 points). Then he fills his force with PzIVs. So, variety is preserved, as is rarity.

And note that newbies cannot be shafted by being misled by prices.

I can think of several refinements of the system, that would make it work even better. Here's one: rarity for all items of a type should increase with the purchase of any item of the same type. This would prevent the problem that would otherwise occur, of a player getting a non-historical force via picking lots of individual rare items.

Another good refinement would be to make some items not available at all, again based on rarity. So even in a 5000 point battle there just may be no Hetzers to be had, and that is that.

[Michael Dorosh]

Your average GI, Tommy or Ivan would probably not have seen either a Pz IV or Hetzer very often - or any tank, for that matter. Perhaps the entire armour category should be granted rarity...

I think BTS has outlined a good system. Tanks are overused in CM anyway, so talking about historicity is a bit silly.

[xerxes]

Rarity by availability makes great sense, even more so if you attach a probability to the number of units of a particular type being available.

But...fundamentally, player picked forces are going to be problematic no matter HOW you design it. Any unit selection system can (and will) be gamed. As flexibility in unit selection increases gaming the system becomes more and more advantageous. Any attempt to reduce unit selection gaming has to reduce purchasing flexibility.

Obviously computer pick has 0 flexibility and 0 gameability. The current CM system is quite high on gameability due to the very large number of unit choices. Rarity will reduce gameability somewhat by make some units simply "too expensive".

Limiting the # of any specific unit (or a sliding cost scale based on the # you pick) would significantly reduce the gameability of force selection. No more 15 HMCs.

Personally I think there are really only three options for non-gamey forces, computer pick, 3rd party pick, and pre-made scenarios.

-marc

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Wreck:

Steve, the use of price alone as a means to implement rarity is not an ideal system.<hr></blockquote>

I had this exact discussion with Steve in a thread a long while back. A search may turn it up. Suffice it to say I agree with your reasoning, but Steve did not. A number of rarity systems were proposed and discussed at length, including the one you are proposing here. My proposed system was a bit different than yours, but in the end BTS went with their original idea. We'll just have to see how it works out when it gets here. The saving grace may be that the whole thing is optional.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

[Wreck]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

I think there are really only three options for non-gamey forces, computer pick, 3rd party pick, and pre-made scenarios.

<hr></blockquote>

Another problem worth noting with rarity-via-price is that it cannot be used for computer-picks. (Well, it could I suppose but very likely the results would be silly, i.e., 1000 point battle and computer picks you a platoon of gjagers for 500 points.) Whereas, rarity-via-availability would work fine with computer-picks; in fact it would improve it considerably.

[sightreader]

How about two point scales, one for combat effectiveness, and another for rarity? Thus, if you were to get a JadgTiger, you'd be out of rarity points and everything else would have to be common as dirt, but the size of your force is still determined by combat effectiveness?

That way, a scenario designer can set the rarity number for each side to determine how bizarre forces can get without unbalancing the battle.

[SlowMotion]

I searched rarity and read some of those discussions. Still I can't understand how the option #2, Fixed Rarity, would make sense. Like Wreck and many others wrote, it seems to make buying rare units dumb. #3 would make purchasing units more exciting because of those possible bargains.

Still, something like Rarity By Availability would be a nice thing to have, maybe the fourth alternative? To me it seems to lead towards units appearing in same kind of percentages as they were found during some month.

In one of those old discussions, these June 1944 numbers were listed:

PzIV - 719

Panther - 333

Tiger - 88

StuG/JagdPz - 393

So, I think some optional rarity system should allow Panthers be about as common as Stugs, but more than twice as rare as PzIVs.

[sightreader]

Sorry that my previous post didn't quite get the rarity by availability thing. My only concern is that the system be as simple as possible: the majority of the market may not be as diehard as most guys posting in the forum. Anyone have ideas how to make RVA simpler?

[Battlefront.com]

Wreck wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Assume for the moment that all the prices in CM currently are perfect. What will a cherry-picker pick? Anything; it would not matter. <hr></blockquote>

Incorrect. The players are either going to by the most ecnomical force (common) or suffer the consequences for squandering points on things which are rare. And why would someone do that? Because they are attempting to be gamey? So in my view, the only player that is going to be adversely affected by this is the Cherry Picker. And that is exactly what we want to have happen

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>In fact "bargainness" and rarity are quite orthogonal. There are rare bargains, and common bargains, and rare ripoffs, and common ripoffs.<hr></blockquote>

Depending on circumstances, sure. But no system, not any, is going to stop this because there is no end of opinions about what constitutes a "bargin" and what is a "rip off". And if a real world force tended to have a lot of a particullarly effective weapon, why should our system prevent that and make an ahistorical restriction?

The whole point of CMBB is to offer options that reduce all of the Cherry Picking options. For example, totally random scenario settings. Cherry Pickers can not be stopped, but they can be greatly hindered *IF* the two players agree to utilize what we have given them. Start up a Quick Battle with all random variables and computer selected forces. No possibility of any sort of Cherry Picking, problem solved

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Now consider what happens when you adjust prices of common and rare items. Again, assume that all prices were perfect to begin with. Then you can see that with knowledgeable players, in any price-adjustments system whichever prices are adjusted upward become ripoffs, and any adjusted downward, bargains. In the rarity-by-price system, no rare item should be chosen by a player playing to win. Common items all become bargains, and rare ones, all are overpriced.<hr></blockquote>

Correct. And that is the entire point of the system.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Therefore you will see a sort of historicity overshoot. It used to be that you never saw PzIVs; they were common but not bargains. Now you will only see them. Of course, seeing only PzIVs is not as bad from the POV of historicity as seeing only Hetzers. So rarity-via-price is still an improvement. But it is still not as good as seeing a variety of things. <hr></blockquote>

You will still see a great variety of things. Even with the Fixed Rarity option this will be the case. For example, if you play a battle in June of 1941 you will likely play with some pretty crappy German tanks and some decent Soviet ones. But June of 1944 you will see totally different, COMPLETELY different, sets of options. In other words, the great variety will happen by playing different months and years, not from playing the same month and year over and over and over and over again.

Remember that Rarity changes by month. So what might be rare in June of 1944 might be very common in January 1945. Even with Fixed Rarity. With Variable Rarity this changes constantly every time the game is played. So if your argument against our system is that it will not provide variety... I say you are wrong simply because you are thinking too narrowly.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The second main problem, I would argue, with rarity-via-price is that you will cripple newbies in competitive play. Before, even if they didn't know much they could still pick a competitive force, since anything they picked was reasonably priced. Now it is quite possible for them to pick rare stuff, meaning overpriced stuff, thinking that the price warrants the purchase. So they lose the game versus any player who knows what is common and what is not, and pick accordingly.<hr></blockquote>

First of all, is this any different than in CMBO now? I mean, if a newbie picks two King Tigers instead of 4 or 5 more well balanced AFVs and infantry, do you mean to tell me he will win? Against a good player he would likely get his butt kicked, especially because winning and losing in CM is based on skill and luck more than anything. Purchasing decisions certainly come into play, but only when looking at things through hindsight. In theory, all purchases made are inherently irrelevant.

But you are even more wrong. Each price clearly shows how much "extra" has been added to the Base Price. So if someone is moronic to take a 800 point Jagdtiger, originally priced at 200 points (just making up numbers here!), why should anybody have ANY sympathy for the player? "Hey buddy! Pst... I'll trade you four of these one dollar bills for that single 20 dollar bill you have. It's a great deal for you buddy! I get one green thing and you get four!"

I think you are selling people's natural intelligence short and totally overestimating people's intelligence in their purchase decisions now. I suspect most newbie players go into CM and select the biggest, baddest tanks they can afford at the expense of all sorts of other valuable things. In CMBB, unless they are complete and utter morons (for whom I have no sympathy for, but I do pitty their parents ), the chances are they are going to select a far more balanced and overall capable force simply because the gamey stuff is priced out of their abilities to purchase.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Allow me propose an alternative system, which would work better.<hr></blockquote>

Even if we agreed with you (and we don't ), we aren't changing what we have. The system is done and has been undergoing testing for weeks (months?). We have the advantage of actually seeing what our system does and does not due, and we are very pleased with it. With respect... you guys are all second guessing something you haven't seen yet, but we have, and promoting a system that is totally unproven to everybody. Nothing wrong with that, but pardon me if I feel a tad bit more informed

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Call it rarity-via-availability. In RVA, prices are not changed; they reflect only in-game usefulness as they currently do. Instead, you are only allowed to buy a finite amount of any given unit. That amount is determined by its rarity factor, and the amount of points allocated to that category in the particular battle. You will only be allowed to spend a certain amount of points on each kind of item; and if that amount of points is less than the cost of the item, you cannot buy it. If the amount of points is only sufficient to buy one of that kind of item, you can only buy one.<hr></blockquote>

Er... but this totally defeats the entire point of the Rarity system. And that is to PREVENT, or at least GREATLY REDUCE, the appearance of rare units of all types. Not to have them rationed, but to have them not show up at all, at least most of the time. We could just have easily removed units from the roster if they were deemed too rare, but we decided to allow people to decide for themselves if they want to spring for something. And hopefully get their butt's kicked so hard that they play the next game with smarter, more realistic unit mixes.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Another problem worth noting with rarity-via-price is that it cannot be used for computer-picks. (Well, it could I suppose but very likely the results would be silly, i.e., 1000 point battle and computer picks you a platoon of gjagers for 500 points.) Whereas, rarity-via-availability would work fine with computer-picks; in fact it would improve it considerably. <hr></blockquote>

I can safely say that you are quite wrong here, since I have the game before me and it doesn't do what you say it does You are not giving us enough credit here. The computer picking code is NOT dumb as a 2 foot thick brick. It picks things based on bang for the buck. Something that is 200% more expensive because it is rare will not be picked. It migh pick something that is 20% rare, but will tend to pick things that are at base cost or below. If the Rarity is Variable, so too with the mix of units the computer thinks are worthy of buying. In short, your concern isn't

Steve

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Battlefront.com]

xerxes

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Limiting the # of any specific unit (or a sliding cost scale based on the # you pick) would significantly reduce the gameability of force selection. No more 15 HMCs.<hr></blockquote>

While our system, in theory, has problems curtailing extreme situations like 15 Heavy Machine Guns, having limited numbers doesn't do anything to fix the problem. How many "limited numbers" of King Tigers should be allowed? 5? 2? 1? Well, realistically the enemy was more likely to see 3-4 King Tigers than to see a single King Tiger, 1 PzIV, 1 Puma, and 1 Hetzer. So a limited number system, practically, has very little impact on gamey choices because the 1 of this and 1 of that is a lot more common than 15 of one thing. At least for things that are not common, like HMCs and King Tigers. But with limited numbers, or a pool of Rarity Points, you can expect to ALWAYS see at least SOMETHING totally rare each and every game. Our system was designed explicitely to snuff that out.

But as you say, selecting units by any other means other than following TO&E or a real life battle account is gamey. Therefore, any system that allows any flexibility is going to have room for abuse. Our system does not stop it, but it certainly guts the heart out of it. More than that, it helps people understand exactly what is and is not rare (and gamey). Most people don't have a clue that some of the stuff they use was almost never seen in combat.

Vanir Ausf B

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>My proposed system was a bit different than yours, but in the end BTS went with their original idea.<hr></blockquote>

Because on balance it was better suited for our philisophical standpoint

Folks... we have found before, as we I see now, that the majority of criticism of our system comes in one of three ways:

1. Not understanding what our system really does. Understandable since we have played with it and you all have not.

2. Ignoring the problems with counter proposals. No system, even ours, is perfect. It all comes down to what is the system designed to do in concept form and which system better acheives it. And that brings us to...

3. Having a significantly different set of goals in mind for what Rarity should achieve. We want to see the rare stuff not appear on the battlefield on a given month of a given year at all with Fixed Rarity, or very occasionally when using the Variable Rarity option. Borderline cases would be up to the player's decision, instead of just deciding to black it out or allow it. If you make sure you can have 2 King Tigers in July of 1944 if you want, then play with Rarity Off like in CMBO.

Our major problem with most of the counter proposals is that they are 1/2 way measures. This is where we part ways with most of the arguments against our system. We do NOT want 1/2 measures because we know that if you give people gamey options, people WILL opt for them unless they aren't prone to play that way in the first place (assuming they even know what a gamey pick is). Look at CMBO... players have the total freedom to NOT make gamey unit picks. There is nothing in the system that says "ooo... I have to pick a King Tiger and SS Motorized Infantry with support from some Fallschrimjägers." No, instead most players can't help themselves, so to speak, and go for the gamey picks willingly, unwillingly (i.e. "well, I know the other guy is going to, so I might as well"), or through ignorance ("gee... I didn't know the Puma was so rare").

Our system is designed to, optionally, end this. The system will span from the two extremes of completely eliminating gamey play (Fixed Rarity, Computer picked units, with lots of random QB options) all they way to the other extreme of complete Cherry Picking that is currently available in CMBO (No Rarity, hand picked units, carefully selected QB parameters). In between we want to have a system which is a bit more flexible than a binary "you have it or you don't" system, but leans way more towards non-gamey options.

Much of the counter proposals boil down (knowingly or not) to "I don't want games to be quite as gamey as they can be in CMBO, but I still want to have the option to make gamey picks if I want to. Just not as manys per game." End result is gamey choices being the norm experience wide, but in smaller quantites per individual game. So perhaps an overall reduction in gamey choices, but each individiual game is most likely going to be a Cherry Picked gamey type situation.

We, on the other hand, we do not want to spend our time catering to a half measure. For Fixed Rarity "I want to see a game enforce a realistically common unit mix, all the time, every time. Since players can not be trusted ONE BIT to make this happen on their own, rare stuff must be overpriced to such a degree that only a fool would make such a choice. In which case, I will take great pleasure in kicking his butt and hopefully teach him a lesson"

For Variable Rarity "I want to see a game always be realistic, all the time, every time. However, since rare stuff was occasionally seen on the battlefield, every once and a while it is realistic for something rare to come into a game. But the chances of that happening should be dependent upon how rare the unit was. However, I do not want the player to be able to decide if and when this happens, because players can't be trusted. That way it is fair and even handed and individual players have zero control over the choices presented to them"

Or for No Rarity "I don't care about having realistic mixes of units at all, any time, all the time. Let players decide for themselves what is or is not going to be on the battlefield and buzz off! However, if people want to make up their own rules about what to use, that's cool. Now with the Rarity options I don't have to listen to hollier than thou players speak of their Gentleman's Agreements because they are no longer needed"

So there we have it We have no problem with people disagreeing with our implementation, but do a double check and you will most likely find out that the reason why is because of an inherent desire to reserve a personal option of buying something Rare without giving up anything extra. Since we are inherently against such a system, it is no wonder we find ourselves disagreeing

There is NOTHING wrong with having a different philisophical viewpoint from ours. However, one must understand that our system is based on our own viewpoint for what we think is best for the game. And therefore, any and all suggestions that would weaken such a solution are contradictory to our goals.

Basically, if you disagree with our goals you will likely disagree with our system. If you disagree with our system you will likely disagree with our goals. None of this is wrong, but it is not compatiable with what we are trying to do.

Steve

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Wreck]

sightreader, RVA is simple from user's point of view. Either they can buy an item, or they can't. "Grey out" the ones that aren't available -- they should be shown but not clickable. What is complicated is getting that yes-or-no question right.

Actually, RVP is also simple, from the user's POV. Simpler, really, since you need not indicate on the buy screen whether something is available or not.

[sightreader]

Oh, I agree with you that it's easy to use, Wreck. The thing is, users who don't understand the underlying mechanics will get frustrated that stuff is grayed out and start calling everything bugs. Of course, they won't take the time to read the manual, either...

[Wreck]

Steve, you point out that RVP will get variety because rarity will change from month to month. That's fine, I understand the point. But I am concerned about variety not just over the course of the war, but within any given month as well. Imagine choosing a Kursk quickbattle and every time, the German buys PzIVf2s, and the Russian, T-34-76bs.

To be general: my point is that with RVP, within any given month, there will be little or no variety, at least with Fixed RVP. The common things will be bargains, others things won't, and that is that.

Why not just got to boolean RVA, and say you can't pick rare things at all? In other words, what's the point of putting in an "option" that is always bad? It does not hurt, I guess, but it is just a tiny bit confusing. One thing you can say for it, is that it would allow a good player to intentionally handicap himself in a way that will become obvious to his opponent during a game, but not setup. For whatever that is worth.

With variable RVP, there might be variety, but only if a rare item can drop down to a common rating. My understanding from what I have read of the system in other posts, is that this will never be -- a rare unit will never become "common" (== cheap), just "less rare" (== ess expensive, but still more than without rarity on). In which case, effectively Variable RVP is little or no different than Fixed.

Now, all that stated, I agree that given the criteria you have stated, your system seems to fill the bill. The implementation is, IMO, is a bit weird.

My criteria for what I want in a rarity system include all the things that you want, but go further. Mine include two more. (1) Wanting a variety in battles within any given month, and (2) wanting to have a balanced battle with the occasional rare unit mixed in with a majority of common units. That's what I believe my proposal will do, and what I have proved your system will not do, outside of the possibility that Variable RVP sometimes allows "rare" units to be rated as "common".

I suppose, given that you are stating you are not going to change at this point (which does not surprise me; I'm a programmer), the only point in my posting anything more on this topic is to beg you to make variable rarity sometimes produce "commonness" even for rare things.

[Michael Dorosh]

This is all much ado about nothing. If you want to use KV-1s, use a premade scenario that features them (either historical or fictional), or simply turn the rarity factors off and buy whatever you want.

Realistic rarity means that, yes, you will likely "only" get a Pz IV F2.

For a true rarity system you would have to determine what month you are playing, what division your force belongs to, and what armoured support that division had either available to it, or organic to it, day by day. I don't see that happening...

[jKMkIII]

This rarity system what is coming to CMBB is exactly what I have been hoping, at least if I have understood it right

But on related thing I would like to know if there are going to be tank formations? Like you can buy infantry in platoons, companies, battalions can you buy tanks and other vehicles in bigger formations?

I don't like playing with any short-75 or panther-76 rules because they just limit what tanks you can get, but not "how" you get them. Still can get 6 different types of tanks and 1 of every type, and would be happier to see enemy have 4 KTs than collection of all german tanks that fit under some rule. Also quite hard to get one Firefly to give british Sherman platoon needed AT power if playing under short-75 rule.

So is there going to be vehicle platoons, companies etc. or something that would encourage people to buy tanks as groups and not singe units.

[Tero]

Would it help if the point allocations for different types of formations was altered when Rarity option is selected ?

Say the player would get different point allocations based on the rarity selection. No rarity selection would draw a different point allocation than a Fixed rarity selection.

Also force types could effect the allocations differently. With Rarity on infantry/support point allocations should (?) be increased while armour gets less allocated points.