JasonC Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 The rarity numbers for the outlier, improved vehicles are too low, particular for the Germans in the mid war period. The result is to encourage QB players to take the best front armor and guns, ignoring less recent types that actually made up the bulk of the fleet at a given date. Rarity seems to follow the latest production models - if the most common type coming out of the factory at a given date was "N", then "N" is low rarity, even if "N" is a thin cream on a large fleet of inferior types. I will try to show this by taking the case of 1942. Germany ended 1941 with around 7000 AFVs - one source gives 6892. In the course of 1942 a bunch more were made. Add those in to get "vehicles available sometime during 1942" and you get around 12500 vehicles. 7000 old ones of 1941 and before make, and 5500 new ones of more modern types. Some much better than others. Now, forward to November 1942 and ask, what portion of the AFVs available by 1942 were this or that improved type? And what rarity number do you pay to get that type in CMBB? At the top there were all of 90 Tigers out by then. That is 0.7% of the 1942 era fleet. The rarity number is +100. It deserves to be enourmous; there are Russian arty modules with +150 and +200 rarity that had a lot more than 90 items for the whole eastern front. But it is high anyway, as it should be. The next best item is an 80mm front StuG with long 75. There were around 340 of those made so far (G and F8), which comes to 2.7% of the AFV fleet. Counting the Tigers, we are now down to the best 3.4%. And the rarity in November 1942? A whopping +10. Next come long 75 vehicles with 50mm fronts, both F StuGs and Pz IV longs. Those are 9% more of the 1942 era fleet, taking us down to the best 12.4% so far, or the best 1/8th of the fleet. Rarity says - +10. The later G model Pz IV with 80mm front hull is +50 it is true, but why would anyone pay for that? Then there are 70mm front long 50mm Pz IIIs. Being generous and counting all 1942 production as uparmored to 70mm, these come to 15% of the 1942 era fleet. We are thus now down to the best 1/4. Rarity says - +5. Next come Marders, thin fronted but with a gun that kills anything at range. These come in various models, totaling 8% of the fleet and bringing us down to the top 35% overall. Rarity says - +5. 65% of the German AFV fleet available at some time during 1942 - because they survived 1941, or because they were built in 1942 - had none of the favorable characteristics mentioned. They did not have impenetrable sides and a gun that killed anything at any range, nor an impenetrable front only and a gun that good, nor a decent front and a gun that good, nor a front impervious to most Russian guns to 500m with a moderately effective gun themselves, nor a killer gun but a thin front. Another couple percent had thicker fronts but 75L24 guns (late IIIs). Some had 50mm fronts with moderately effective long 50 guns (earlier Js). A huge portion had 50mm fronts with lesser guns, 75L24, 50L42, or Czech 37mm. Some were Panzer IIs. A CMBB player in 1942 can avoid the lesser 2/3rds of the fleet without paying a rarity premium higher than +5. If he is willing to pay +10, he can have a vehicle of moderate base price, in the top 1/30th of the historical fleet by quality, that bounces everything from the front and kills everything it hits. There is not nearly enough "lag" in the rarity numbers, to account for the survival of older items in the fleet. And rarity seems to be compared only to a narrow spectrum of similar items - 80mm front StuGs to all StuGs e.g. - rather than considering how rare vehicles that good or better were in the overall fleet mix, down to that date. If you get the top 3% of vehicles, you should pay substantial rarity. An 80mm front StuG in late 1942 should be a rare item, not a vanilla one. Its rarity should be more like 100%, like the Tiger I actually has. The Tiger I in 1942 deserves something more like 200%. If you get the top 30% of vehicles, you should pay some rarity, enough that the cost is significantly above the base price. Something on the order of 30-50%. Even a thick 70mm 50L60 model Pz III, or a Marder, should be on the order of +30 rarity in 1942. Pz IV longs and 50mm front StuG longs should be more like +50. The no longer early G model Pz IV should be more like +80. If you want a low rarity number, you should be looking at Pz III Js (not late), long and short, at short 75s, or lights (Czech and Pz II). One man's opinion... [ April 22, 2003, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I argued somethign like this a few months ago - it ain't gonna change tho. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.E.B Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Hi all The difference is that not all types of German units were competing for the same equipment. With the Tigers, basically only the Independent Heavy Tank Battalions got them. Same deal with the Elephant and Jadgtiger I think. Later in the war SS panzer divisions got the pick of new armour. Other units could be out of the line and refitting, freeing up older tanks for units still in the line. I think that rarity should be based on the age of service. In 1942/43 PzIIIs should be cheap simply because units were shedding them for PzIVs. Limited production units like Tigers and the rarer assult guns should remain rare. I think that the decision was made in CM to limited the rarity x factor so that less common units were actually used in the game. I think that most players would trade 2 or 3 PzIVs for a Tiger I, but would there trade 5 or 6? Remember, despite the realism, at its core CM is still a game. Regards A.E.B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiggDogg Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Matt, Steve, & Rest Of BFC, It might be suggested that you all contact Jason & Stalin and utilize them for increasing the historical accuracy of the CMBB rarity factors. :eek: Those guys have way, way too much time on their hands. Also, we informed but unwashed masses and BB would benefit from their expertise, idle time, and active, informed, and fertile minds. Cheers, Richard [ April 23, 2003, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I have noticed that many people falsely assume the rarity rules would offer the more balanced play. Standard prices are optimised for balanced play. Rarity modified prices are optimised for historical likelihood. If you want balance and historicality, use some special rule or play against someone who knows what is balanced and historical (ie. cherry-pick your opponent). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou2000 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Historical / Rarity / Balance accuracy (IMHO) I doubt you'll find many scenarios that can claim to be accurate on all three .... or many games that can come as close as CM to modelling them. 1. Historically accurate doesnt mean balanced forces or a balanced game. 2. Rarity ... Well I tend to agree with JasonC, who has summed that up better than I ever could. 3. Balance ... well there probably were not many battles when the forces on the battlefield were 'balanced'. If they were balanced/matched and even they the commaders planning the war probably got something wrong. You'd always try to attack with an advantage. 4. I always enjoy these articles .... can we have an 'anthology of JasonC / Fionn Kelly posts :cool: If it was on the Hints & Tips forum the ensuing discussion would probably double the postings to that forum. The average QB or even pre-made scenario for PBEM or even AI wont give you all 3 ... but will try to get a 'balance' to give a good game for both players . I'll take a scenario with playability and balance over an historically correct battle that often has a predetermined outcome ! But the discussions on each make for good reading. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Well we csan examine the tanks Pz Divs actualy had on example dates Ie, below are Panzer Div Strenghts & tank types prior to the start of the 1942 Summer offensives *: 1st Panzer Div. 15.7.42: 2- PzKpfw II. 10 - PzKpfw 38t 26 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 7 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 4 - Pz.Bef 2nd Panzer Div. 20.06.42: 22 - PzKpfw II 33 - PzKpfw 38t 20 - PzKpfw III 50/L42 8 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 2- Pz.Bef 3rd Panzer Div. 27.06.42: 25 - PzKpfw II 66 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 40 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 21 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 2 - Pz.Bef 4th Panzer Div. 01.07.42 13 - PzKpfw II 28 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 5 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 2 - Pz.Bef 5th Panzer Div. 25.07.42: 26 - PzKpfw II 55 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 13 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 9 - Pz.Bef 8th Panzer Div. 28.07.42: 1 - PzKpfw II 65 - PzKpfw 38t 2 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 9th Panzer Div. 22.07.42: 22 - PzKpfw II 38- PzKpfw III 50L/42 61 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 9 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 2 - Pz.Bef 11th Panzer Div. 25.06.42: 15 - PzKpfw II 14 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 110 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 1 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 3 - Pz.Bef 12th Panzer Div. 01.07.42: 48 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 6 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 4 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43 13th Panzer Div. 22.06.42: 15 - PzKpfw II 41 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 30 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 12 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 5 - Pz.Bef 14th Panzer Div. 20.06.42: 14 - PzKpfw II 41 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 19 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 20 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 4 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43 4 - Pz. Bef 16th Panzer Div. 01.07.42: 13 - PzKpfw II 39 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 18 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 15 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 12 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43 17th Panzer Div. 29.06.42: 17 - PzKpfw II 36 - PzKpw III 50L/42 16 - PzKpfw IV 75L/42 2 - Pz.Bef 18th Panzer Div. 29.06.42: 11 - PzKpfw II 26 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 8 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 2 - Pz.Bef 19th Panzer Div. 15.07.42: 6 - PzKpfw II 12 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 4 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 20th Panzer Div. 30.06.42: 8 - PzKpfw II 39 - PzKpdw 38t 20 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 13 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 7 - Pz.Bef 22nd Panzer Div. 01.07.42: 28 - PzKpfw II 114 - PzKpfw 38t 12 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 11 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 11 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43 23rd Panzer Div. 28.06.42: 27 - PzKpfw II 50 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 34 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 17 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 10 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43 24th Panzer Div. 28.06.42: 32 - PzKpfw II 54 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 56 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 20 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 12 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43 7 - Pz. Bef Pz.Abt.103 28.06.42: 10 - PzKpfw II 35 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 8 - PzKpfw IV 75L43 1 - Pz.Bef Pz.Abt.116 28.06.42: 10 - PzKpfw II 35 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 8 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43 1 - Pz.Bef Pz.Abt.129 28.06.42: 12 - PzKpfw II 36 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 8 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43 2 - Pz.Bef Pz.Abt.160 07.07.42: 17 - PzKpfw II 35 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 4 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43 1 - Pz.Bef Pz/Abt.GR.D 01.07.42: 12 - PzKpfw II 2 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 18 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 12 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43 1 - Pz.Bef SS.Pz.Abt.5 27.06.42: 12 - PzKpfw II 12 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 24 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 4 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 1 - Pz.Bef III./Pz.Abt.204 23.06.42 11 - PzKpfw II 26 - PzKpfw 38t 1 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 4 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 4 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43 *See: Jentz Thomas L. Panzer Truppen Vol. 1 pp.236 - 239 Regards, John Waters [ April 23, 2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Continuation of examples Geman tank Strength/type example dates Prior to operation Zitadelle: * 2nd Panzer Div. 01.07.43: 12 - PzKpfw II 8 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 12 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 20 - PzKpfw III 75L/24 1 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 59 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 6 - Pz.Bef 3rd Panzer Div. 01.07.43: 7 - PzKpfw II 8 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 34 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 17 - PzKpfw III 75L/24 2 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 21 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 1 - Pz.bef 4th Panzer Div. 01.07.43: 15 - PzKpfw III 75L/24 1 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 79 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 6 - Pz.Bef 5th Panzer Div. 01.07.43: 17 - PzKpfw III 75L/24 76 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 9 - Pz.Bef 6th Panzer Div. 01.07.43: 13 - PzKpfw II 34 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 18 - PzKpfw III 75L/24 32 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 6 - Pz.Bef 14 - Flammpz 7th Panzer Div. 01.07.43: 12 - PzKpfw II 43 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 12 - PzKpfw III 75L/24 1 - PzKpfw IV 75L24 37 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 7 - Pz.Bef 8th Panzer Div. 01.07.43: 14 - PzKpfw II 3 - PzKpfw 38t 25 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 30 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 4 - PzKpfw III 75L/24 8 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 14 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 6 - Pz.Bef 9th Panzer Div. 01.07.43: 1 - PzKpfw II 8 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 30 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 8 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 30 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 6 - Pz.Bef 11th Panzer Div. 01.07.43: 8 - PzKpfw II 11 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 51 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 1 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 25 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 4 - Pz.Bef 13 - Flammpz 12th Panzer Div. 01.07.43: 6 - PzKpfw II 15 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 6 - PzKpfw III 75L/24 1 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 36 PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 4 - Pz.Bef 13th Panzer Div. 01.07.43: 5 - PzKpfw II 4 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 10 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 50 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 2 - Pz.Bef 17th Panzer Div. 01.07.43: 4 - PzKpfw II 1 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 19 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 31 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 2 - Pz.Bef 18th Panzer Div. 07.01.43: 5 - PzKpfw II 10 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 20 - PzKpfw III 75L/24 1 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 31 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 2 - Pz.Bef 19th Panzer Div. 01.07.43: 2 - PzKpfw II 5 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 22 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 11 - PzKpfw III 75L/24 2 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 36 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 3 - Pz.Bef 20th Panzer Div. 01.07.43: 9 - PzKpfw 38t 2 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 10 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 5 - PzKpfw III 75L/24 9 - PzKpfw IV 75/L24 40 - PzKpfw IV 75L43/48 7 - Pz.Bef 23rd Panzer Div. 01.07.43: 1 - PzKpfw II 7 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 17 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 3 - PzKpfw III 75L/24 30 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 1 - Pz.Bef 16th Pz.Gren. Div. 01.07.43: 4 - PzKpfw II 32 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 5 - PzKpfw III 75L/24 11 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 1 - Pz.Bef Pz.Gren. Div. G.D. 01.07.43: 4 - PzKpfw II 1 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 20 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 2 - PzKpfw III 75L/24 5 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 63 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 15 - PzKpfw VI 8 - Pz.Bef 14 - Flammpz SS.Pz.Gren. Div. LSSAH. 01.07.43: 4 - PzKpfw II 3 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 10 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 67 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 13 - PzKpfw VI 9 - Pz.Bef SS.Pz.Gren.Div Das Reich. .01.07/43: 1 - PzKpfw II 62 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 33 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 14 - PzKpfw VI 10 - Pz.Bef 25 - T-34-76 SS.Pz.Gren.Div. Totenkopf. 01.07.43: 63 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 8 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 44 - PzKpfw IV 75L/43/48 15 - PzKpfw VI 9 - Pz.Bef SS.Pz.Gren.Div. Wiking. 01.07.43: 4 - PzKpfw II 1 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 14 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 8 - PzKpfw III 75L/24 1 - PzKpfw IV 75L/24 16 - PzKpfw IV 75/L43/48 1 - Pz.Bef Pz.Abt. 51, & 52. 01.07.43 200 - PzKpfw V Pz.Abt.(FKL) 301. 01.07.43: 7 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 3 - PzKpfw III 75L/24 17 - StuG 1./Pz.Abt.502 01.07.43: 3 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 1 - PzKpfw III 75L/24 14 - PzKpfw VI Pz.Abt.503 01.07.43: 45 - PzKpfw VI Pz.Abt.505 01.07.43: 8 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 7 - PzKpfw III 50L/60 31 - PzKpfw VI Pz.Kp. 221. 01.07.43: 15 - PzKpfw III 50L/42 Sturm-Pz.Abt.216 01.07.43: 45 - Sturmpz. *See: Jentz Thomas L. Panzer Truppen vol 2 pp. 78 - 82 Regards, John Waters 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Nice foregoing item with the actuals. My initial reaction to the post is that I naturally assume that second line equipment goes to quieter areas of the front. Yugoslavia, the garrison units in non-active occupied Europe have very high percentages of the lesser AFV's. Your best tanks go to Russia and North Africa and therefore would justifiably be more common than a simple percentage of total AFV's would indicate. Secondly I think the rarity factor has the unintentional and saddening effect of meaning some tanks will never see action. In meeting engagements, with unit restrictions, where humans choose the choice tends to be simply the most effective bangs for the buck and you this virtually always means MKIV's MKIII' and Sturm's and whatever flavour T34 is cheapest at that time. With two rational people you can pretty much guarantee the number of AFV's per side. You can also guarantee about 19 tanks you are never going to see because of the cost/rarity equation! But its a wonderful game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Continuation of examples German Tank/AG strength on the Eastren Front as of 31.04.44 The Germans had 1,391 Tank/StuG broken down as: 604 - PzKpfw IV 313 - PzKpfw V 298 - PzKpfw VI 176 - StuG German Tank/AG strength on the Eastren Front as of 15.03.45 was 2,493 AFVs broken down as: 603 - PzKpfw IV 75L/48 776 - PzKpfw V 212 - PzKpfw VI 357 - Pz.IV/70 545 - StuG Regards, John Waters 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 A differing opinion on rarity. Strict rules of rarity for CMBB is like building a mannned spaceflight simulation then complaining that rarity dictates that nobody should be up in space for most of the game, because in real life space is mostly empty. Sure it may be true, strictly speaking, but the point of most historical simulations is to historically simulate the 'interesting' bits of history, not the dull bits! I think rarity is a basically fruitless undertaking at CM scale. Nobody's can deny that there was a 3km x 3km square of land SOMEWHERE on the vast Russian steppes in late 44 that had three Tiger IIs working together. Granted, those 3 Tigers wouldn't have been on 99.999% of the 3x3km squares you looked, but they WOULD have been there somewhere. So what's wrong with simulating that particular 3x3mk square at that moment in time? And no, I'm not advocating 5 Sturmtigers fighting together. There's a difference between 'cherry picking' historical events and outright fantasy. [ April 23, 2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Well 5 Sturmtigers were probably within 3 km of each other too........ My beef is with the rarity cost applied to obsolete equipment, not the costs for the latest super-kitty. For example on hte Russian web page there's an account of what might've been the last T40 in active service with a tank Brigade at Leningrad in 1944 - now I haven't checked the game for how muchrarity that would get, but IMO there should be none - at least not as a points cost! Rarity for old vehicles should probably be in terms of numbers, not points. IMO it's silly to be charging as much for a T40 in 1944 as a T34 (at a guess) when the T40 is a "filler" - it's there, there's a place in the Brigade for it, and they use it. It's not expensive - it's a cheap afterthought! Similarly with all sorts of obsolete equipment - they were retained/used because they were all that was available - something I'm sure we all know, but which rarity as it's incorporated now doesn't simulate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted April 24, 2003 Author Share Posted April 24, 2003 Look at the summer 1942 figures, even though they are only turreted tanks and don't include StuGs, Marders, etc. There are 2172 tanks listed (not counting command tanks). 5.3% have 75L43 guns. For the 50mm front versions, in June you pay +40, in July +30. Front armor is not specified. In CM, you can have the 80mm front model StuG for +100 in June (too expensive), +50 in July. The late G model Pz IV is available at +80 in July, but is worse than the +50 thick StuG. 25% have 50L60. In CM, you pay only +5 rarity to have a 70mm front late J with that gun. There is no reason to take any of the 50mm front IIIs or any of the less guns. What portion of the real 25% with 50L60 were also uparmored to 70mm? Donno, it doesn't say. But less than "all". So you pay +5 to take only the best 1/3 to best 1/4 of the fleet, just as I said. Because the superior guns are relatively new, you pay +30 to +50 for them, depending on the month and whether you also want an invunerable front plate (hint, you do). Thus, in human chosen CMBB QBs, the Russian will *always* face 70mm thick long 50s, and *usually* also face 75mm guns, by July 80mm thick ones. The 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the fleet the Germans actually had, except for an occasional "rounding error" or "scout" Pz II or Marder, will never be heard from. For all the world as though the fleet in 1942 actually read "half long 75s, half 70mm thick long 50s". Oops. That is the bulk of the *Kursk* fleet. A year early. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted April 24, 2003 Author Share Posted April 24, 2003 MickeyD said - "the point of most historical simulations is to historically simulate the 'interesting' bits of history" And you consider "interesting" only the portions of history in which the most advanced German tanks faced vanilla Russian ones? Cherry picking has enourmous and completely unhistorical balance consequences. The Russian fleet is significantly more homogeneous than the German one, with its best vehicles closer in performance to its average ones. As a result, cherry picking dramatically favors the Germans during most of the war. (In 1941 QBs only, Russian KVs are a similar ahistorical problem). The Russians were fielding thick turret T-34 models in large numbers by early in 1942. The Germans had to fight them with a tank fleet consisting mostly of 50mm front vehicles with 50L42 and 75L24 guns. This entire technological period disappears with low rarity numbers for the most recently produced models. The Germans go straight from facing thin turret T-34s to having 70mm front 50L60s and 75L43 guns themselves. The Russian 76mm, which historically faced 50mm thick tanks for practically the entire period the Germans had the initiative, is rendered practically impotent from the front beyond 500m in the first year. Now color me stupid, but the historically interesting bit of history to me is that, and how, the Germans managed to conquer most of European Russia in 50mm front Pz IIIs. And in CMBB, they just don't. They don't even have to try. They magically have a 1943 tank fleet in 1942. Then there is another historically interesting period, where the Russians in mere T-34-76s managed to drive the Germans out of the Ukraine, despite the fact that the Germans had by then fielded Tigers and Panthers, and scads of 80mm front StuGs and Pz IVs with long 75s. Anyone who has tried to simulate battles in this period in CMBB will tell you what actually happens with cherry picking. Invunerable overmodeled StuGs, or uberTigers, annihilate the Russians without appreciable loss. You may consider this "historically interesting". I notice that instead it is historically *false*. If typical armor engagements in 1943 looked anything like CMBB QBs set in 1943, the Germans wouldn't have lost the decisive battles of the war that year, and they did. [ April 24, 2003, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Originally posted by JasonC: Then there is another historically interesting period, where the Russians in mere T-34-76s managed to drive the Germans out of the Ukraine, despite the fact that the Germans had by then fielded Tigers and Panthers, and scads of 80mm front StuGs and Pz IVs with long 75s. Anyone who has tried to simulate battles in this period in CMBB will tell you what actually happens with cherry picking. Speaking of 1943, an German report on tank/AG losses from the summer months of 1943, (June - Sept) Attributed 85% of the losses to artillery & AFVs, broken down as: Artillery - 67.5% Tank/SU - 17.5% By comparison A 1944 German report on cause of loss, of 8,148 examined destroyed Soviet Tank/SU showed the following as cause of loss: 1,969 - PAK 1,762 - Assault Guns & SPAT 3,196 - Tanks 701 - Artillery & mines 520 - Infantry in close combat % Soviet tank/SU destroyed by Weapon Sys: Pak - 24% AG/SPAT - 22% Tank - 39% Artillery/mines - 9% Infantry - 6% Regards, John Waters [ April 25, 2003, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: My beef is with the rarity cost applied to obsolete equipment, not the costs for the latest super-kitty.Yeah, that's something I never understood. If the CM rarity was supposed to restrict cherry picking...then why are the cherrys always the cheapiest tanks? In a setup I made some days ago, I had T-34/85 at -10% and T-34/76 1941 at +some hundrets%. Who would ever purchase obsolet euipment when he is additonally punished with high purchase costs? I would also like to see that rarity uses avaiable numbers, not an abstract purchase system. What would IMO mean that much eqipment is not available at many times an some parts of the front. When Barbarossa started, only the southern front had T-34 in numbers worth mentioning. But CM rarity shows for the T34 M40 & M41 always +20% for North, Central and South. Also, the first Panthers were only available at Kursk, but you can purchase them in June 43 on all frontlines. Seems to me that the general concept of rarity is wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Some 'obsolete' equipment can be quite useful. The StuG with the sIG 33 on is a good example. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Originally posted by Scipio: Yeah, that's something I never understood. If the CM rarity was supposed to restrict cherry picking...then why are the cherrys always the cheapiest tanks? In a setup I made some days ago, I had T-34/85 at -10% and T-34/76 1941 at +some hundrets%. Who would ever purchase obsolet euipment when he is additonally punished with high purchase costs? Cough cough - why don't you go for the T34obr43 with the 76 gun, instead of the 41 model? June 44 -5% (85 +5%); Dec 44 +5% (85 -10%); it is only in 1945 that there is a big difference, and even then variable rarity will probably affect that. The reason the obr41 is extremely rare is that presumably by 1944 there were none of them left. As for the general point - QBs are the competitive part of the game. People will cherry-pick. Play scenarios, or find yourself a PBEM opponent who is interested in exploring these situations and purchase for your battle in the editor. Asking random opponents to go for crap tanks which will almost guarantee them a loss is like asking them to watch the paralympics. It is a laudable and worthy thing, but it is never going to be as popular as the real thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorgias Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Yes Jason i agree absolutely with u. I never thought that battlefront was going to change any pen. or thick armor data.... but i hope at least the cost for different units were fixed. Is absolutely absurd that it´s said the soviets had a lot of more casualties than germans and at same time the cost the most of soviet tanks is more or less equivalent to the german tanks or infantry. I dont understand yet how could win the war the soviets 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumvir Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Well, depends on whether you consider points to be relative to the entire pool of German/Soviet resources or absolute based on the merits of the weapon system itself. If relative, then it doesn't seem to make much sense that the costs are equivalent. If absolute, though, it makes perfect sense for prices to be roughly equivalent or even more expensive -- the Soviets had a _lot_ more resource points to spend overall than the Germans and you as a tactical commander only see a small fraction of total points available. Rarity muddles the issue a bit by adding a historical factor, but if variable rarity is used, it makes purchasing a lot more interesting. In CMBO there was no reason to not go with standard forces -- in CMBB, there is a possibility that a slightly unusual force may make more sense when you're allocating your points. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikser Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 I see the problem, but I think that unless some serious rethinking is done in regards to how rarity should be implemented, the only solution is to play with an opponent who has some comprehension of what should be feasible in any a given time period. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammenwerfer Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Originally posted by JasonC: Invunerable overmodeled StuGs, or uberTigers, annihilate the Russians without appreciable loss. You may consider this "historically interesting". I notice that instead it is historically *false*. If typical armor engagements in 1943 looked anything like CMBB QBs set in 1943, the Germans wouldn't have lost the decisive battles of the war that year, and they did. This is an interesting point. I'm currently working on a Kursk scenario with the Germans fielding Tigers against Soviet T-34/76, even at 4 to 1 odds it's tough getting a balanced fight... Even at close range, under 500m the Soviet gun is pretty much useless... Is this historic? :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Yes, because of all the T-34's that never came anywhere near a Tiger and performed perfectly adequately against everything else they encountered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scipio: Yeah, that's something I never understood. If the CM rarity was supposed to restrict cherry picking...then why are the cherrys always the cheapiest tanks? In a setup I made some days ago, I had T-34/85 at -10% and T-34/76 1941 at +some hundrets%. Who would ever purchase obsolet euipment when he is additonally punished with high purchase costs? Cough cough - why don't you go for the T34obr43 with the 76 gun, instead of the 41 model? June 44 -5% (85 +5%); Dec 44 +5% (85 -10%); it is only in 1945 that there is a big difference, and even then variable rarity will probably affect that. The reason the obr41 is extremely rare is that presumably by 1944 there were none of them left. As for the general point - QBs are the competitive part of the game. People will cherry-pick. Play scenarios, or find yourself a PBEM opponent who is interested in exploring these situations and purchase for your battle in the editor. Asking random opponents to go for crap tanks which will almost guarantee them a loss is like asking them to watch the paralympics. It is a laudable and worthy thing, but it is never going to be as popular as the real thing. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Once upon a time there was a set of figure gaming rules that had a "rarity" system - it basically said that any upgunned or uparmoured tanks in excess of previous versions still in service at that date paid double points. Heavy tanks in excess of mediums also paid double points. There were plenty of hassles with this, but it did work quite well and had the advantage of simplicity - the rules had a list of vehicle service dates in hte back that were good enough at hte time & everyone just used them. With the advantages of computer power available now I can think of many enhancements - like allowing more upgunned vehicles "at cost" when the previous ones were getting rarer, or requiring more of the previous vehicles per later one if the later ones were particularly rare. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.