Stugged Out

[PeterX]

Sorry if this is a hoary, old topic, but... I have a request for the next iteration of CM, or even patch 1.03. : when setting a PBEM QB under the computer selects forces parameter, make it so the recipient sees the map & units before the initiator.

Asit stands now, the creator can 'dice roll' the setup until he comes up with the most desirable result.

The other route, selecting one's own guys, inevitably means the Russian player picks T34s and the German player, Stugs. It's the perception that, for most of the war, the former is the most reliable antidote for the latter. And vice versa. Nobody wants to be caught with their digital pants down; by ending up with, say, BT7s taking on MK4s. Or Lynxes mixing it up T26s. Yet these matchups occurred. I've yet to encounter 2/3 of the Soviet AFV park in a PBEM game. Borrrrring! Anyone else Stugged out?

[ April 10, 2003, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Sergei]

Well yes, I'd second and bundle this with a general revision for PBEM. As has been demonstrated, it could be done with less fuss and with the same security level. And the QB start-up process is an obvious security flaw.

Not that I wouldn't trust my opponents.

[MikeyD]

Reminds me of an old thread. People were complaining that CMBB wasn't 'realistic' because of the typical force mix in Quickbattles. But the problem is nobody WANTS to play Russian conscript farmboys or 14 year Volksurm soldiers with depleted ammo!

The only solution I can think of is to abandon the concept of winning and losing and let the 'historical reenactment' chips fall where they may.

There's a special pleasure in watching your green infantry routed by a horriffic opening barrage!

[ April 10, 2003, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Redwolf]

The issue here is not capabilities but prices. The often chosen units are chosen because they offer the best value for the purchase points.

Now, don't understand me wrong, BFC had to choose one price system and then stick to it and the one they chose is not particulary bad.

A true competitive system which would ensure a variety of units chosen for competive games would require adaption of the prices depending on at least timeframe, if not other criteria as well.

I once started definiting a system for TacOps which went along these lines: You define which is the thickest common tank to appear in the game you want to play now. For that tank you assign a price based on a criteria based on other units. My intention was to say "the thickest common tank always costs the same as one infantry platoon". You can use othe bases if you prefer. Now, all other tanks have a price relative to that "reference tank".

That means that in a game where M1A1s are the reference tank (common) a T-55 is worth vey few, even compared to an infantry platoon. If the thickest tank is a M-48 then the T-55 is much more expensive.

Example:

- infantry platoon costs 120 points

- reference tank always costs the same - 120 points

- you have a table which says "a Pz VI G late always costs 55% of a Tiger"

- and "a Lynx always costs 25% of a Tige"

Then if your game has the Tiger as defined as biggest common tank, you pay 120 points fo the infantry platoon, 120 points for the Tiger and Mk IV costs 66 points and the Lynx 30 points.

If your game has the PZ IV G defined as reference tank then the Mk IV will cost 120 points and the Lynx 55 points.

Obviously, for a WW2 game you need some adjustments like if a StuG with few MG capability and ammo is the reference tank then it doesn't cost the same as an infantry platoon but 80% of it. But I think you get the idea.

If only wish CMBB would allow us to import our own price list. Maybe Schoerner can overwrite the prices in memory?

[Ex Bellator]

On a similar note isn't there also a HUGE problem with Variable rarity setups using the current PBEm system?

AFAIK there is nothing stopping the person who sets a game up using Variable rarity just constantly firing up new setups until he sees King Tigers at -30% cost or somefink. He buys his precious Heavies (or whatever he's looking out for) at a good cost and mails the file to the poor second player who is stuck with what's on offer..

Seems like a new PBEm startup routine would be a good idea.

[Edit - I also got bored very quickly with facing Stugs and KVs, but subsequently found that every player I played was always very agreeable to a few pre-battle outlines. EG. let's make this a battle between light forces in '41...]

[ April 10, 2003, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Rex Bellator ]

[PeterX]

AFAIK there is nothing stopping the person who sets a game up using Variable rarity just constantly firing up new setups until he sees King Tigers at -30% cost or somefink.

Correct, RB. I think this should be changed so that the initiating player sets the parameters and then mails off the setup before he sees either the units or their prices. Perhaps this is a doable enhancement for CMAK.

OTOH, what's to prevent the recipient from sending back his own self-generated setup and calling it ****.002?

[Talenn]

This is basically the same issue that I brought up at the beginning of CMBB and has continued to rear it's head time and again. Why? Because I firmly believe that certain vehicles are priced incorrectly, possibly due to the 'weighting' that various stats have in the point cost formula.

Let's face it...there are AFVs that we ALWAYS seem to have to fight against in certain time periods. This should be a signal that they are too cost effective. I understand the Party Line about having to have one cost for all situations instead of a floating cost. Fine. No problems there as trying to make a variable point system would result in the game never making it to release.

The problem is that certain vehicles tend to make it on to the battlefield almost regardless of the situation. Almost any time I'm in the late '42s/early '43s, I fight StuGs...whether attacking or defending. If they have AFVs, its usually StuGs. That is a definately hint that they are TOO COST EFFECTIVE. When players are picking them to use in roles for which they are not historically suited because they are still the most cost effective AFVs, then there is a problem. Who wouldnt rather have 3 StuGs than 2 MkIVs and a few points left over? Its more guns, more armor, and almost as many MGs. You are basically frontally immune to opposing AFVs of the time whereas with the MkIV's, you can far more easily be taken out. Even if one StuG completely bogs and is taken out of the equation, the two remaining StuGs will still aquit themselves better vs most enemy armor and guns. Unless we are talking a knife fight, the StuG is almost always better when you consider the nearly 50% more that will present on the battlefield.

Anyways, this horse is dead, Dead, DEAD. But the point is still valid. Until recently, I wasnt able to put my arguement into text. Now I can: Certain vehicles should be addressed for point balance because they are being picked (and effective) in situations where they should not be based solely on the cost in PV.

Did any of that make sense?

Talenn

[Sergei]

Originally posted by PeterX:

OTOH, what's to prevent the recipient from sending back his own self-generated setup and calling it ****.002?

It would be noticed when the first player doesn't know what password to use...

[PeterX]

Because I firmly believe that certain vehicles are priced incorrectly, possibly due to the 'weighting' that various stats have in the point cost formula.

Let's get real. The goal of affixing perfectly accurate costs, upon which grogs can agree, to each unit will never be attained. It's chasing a mirage. As long as BFC gets the pricing part reasonably OK that's the most we can expect.

I prefer the solution of simply adding an additional turn to the PBEM sequence; the initiator sends off .001 blind. That solves the 'dice roll' temptation: 'Baby needs a cheap pair of KV2s!' A typical PBEM can require a hundred email exchanges. If that becomes a hundred and one, so what?

An alternative would be much more unpredictable variable costs. Or even dropping certain unit groups off the 'buy list' all together- or the computer select list- on a random basis. Maybe players would actually encounter historically common units like AT Rifles in a game. Has anyone ever bought one of these? Be honest.

[ April 11, 2003, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

One option I have been considering is limiting the time period for my games to those where there are no 'invincible' common vehicles available. That means Spring '42 (May and June in particular), mid '44 (June works best), and Feb-May '45.

[Redwolf]

The "invincible" problem is easy to solve with something like Fionn rules (different ones for each timeframe)

I had a set almost finished but even after repeated mention noone was interested so I dropped the project.

Seems to me the current CMBB player base is a little less interested in the "hard work" aspects of the game than the CMBO crowd was...

[Andreas]

I must be weird because I like loading up on ATRs.

I am amazed that someone would go to such length as indicated in the inital post to win a game. Never even crossed my mind to continually restart the game until you get the result you like. Ah well, it takes a village I guess.

[PeterX]

I must be weird because I like loading up on ATRs.

Not weird, Andreas, but a bit eccentric perhaps. ATR units decline in utility as the war wears on. Thus the perceived notion that the purchase thereof is wasteful. Despite the historical evidence showing them in plentiful battlefield supply well after 1942, with or without the presence of halftracks.

Acutally, this thread was less about trust than the mind numbing, eye glazing reappearance of a handful of uber-units in PBEM games. Another T34/Stug duel and I'm converting to Raeliansim. And neither side's ATR can do anything to these omnipresent AFVs except- maybe- force them to button them up.

And, personally, I find the iron clad security of the CM PBEM system to be one of the game's charms. As Reagan said in Iceland, 'Trust but verify'.

[ April 11, 2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

I always take some ATRs because the Germans always seem to have LAVs running around. Besides, they usually come with Soviet battalions when you buy them in formation.

T-34s get used so much because they're the most versitile tank the Soviets get, and because they have very few armor units that are effective against German armor. The KVs are great until the 76mm gun loses its effectivenss with the appearance of 80mm armored Stugs in '42. SU-100s are awesome, but don't appear until 1945. IS-2s are highly unreliable due to super low ROF. Same with IS-122s and 152s. In '41 the Soviet 45mm ammo is so crappy they can't even take out the Pz IIIs frontally. So, every time someone looks at that purchase screen the T-34 always seems like the best bet. I don't think there's much that can be done about that.

[Redwolf]

Put it this way: the common T-34 and StuG pair is at least much more realistic than the 95mm Cromwell versus Panzer IV/70 . So I guess CMBB is at least a huge improvement.

I think much of the T-34 love (at least for me) comes from the fact that they are so mobile and don't have to rely on turning speed that much. Since CMBB is very pessimistic with the open-ground behaviour and the turn speed and often gives "damp" ground even when the user didn't ask for it this is a huge advantage.

[PeterX]

Put it this way: the common T-34 and StuG pair is at least much more realistic than the 95mm Cromwell versus Panzer IV/70 .

No argument there. T34s and STugs were common AFVs on the Eastern Front, especially T34s, but not to the exclusion of others (like, uh, MKII,III,& IVs?) which their dreary omniprevalence in PBEM matches seem to attest.

My point was that we often get the most interesting, varied, and realistic battles when the computer selects our forces. But, unfortunately, the PBEM opening routine, as is, is subject to abuse; your opponent should see the map and units before you, the initiator, do. Unless, of course, it's an imported map. (Am I repeating myself?)

[ April 11, 2003, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Speaking of damp ground, one way of discouraging Stug fever is to set weather to random, which will result in damp or wet ground about %60 of the time. Stug IIIs are a terrible off-road in anything other than dry weather.

I will sometimes take IS-2s or ISU-152s just for the hell of it. Sure, if the first shot misses they're dead, but you can put the fear of God into your opponent's infanty in the mean time

[demoss]

There is one big drawback of the StuG that people don't seem to be touching on, which is the ammo loadout. Put simply, it sucks. It seems like I'm ALWAYS running out of ammo with my StuGs when I'm given them in scenarios (no, I haven't been playing QBs).

On the other hand, they do live long enough for that to be a problem.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by PeterX:

My point was that we often get the most interesting, varied, and realistic battles when the computer selects our forces. But, unfortunately, the PBEM opening routine, as is, is subject to abuse; your opponent should see the map and units before you, the initiator, do. Unless, of course, it's an imported map. (Am I repeating myself?)

Sorry but the computer autoselector is just too bad for my taste.

Too many engineers, useless APCs, forces with no antitank weapons whatsoever and other issues. And I don't see an improvement in realism either, only one in non-gameyness.

It would be easy to write a better one but CM has no interface to plug it in.

[Bruceov]

Play more scenarios. A broader force mix without the problems of auto select. The best scenarios have a kind of balance