How where the QB prices decided

[Cthulhu Dreams]

For the curious, does anyone know what the mechamism used to decide the prices of infantry/artillery/tanks etc in quick battles?

[securityguard]

It's a combo of rarity, effectiveness and loadout I think.

[Redwolf]

The mechanism has not been published.

Securitguard, rarity is extra and not included in the base prices.

[Cthulhu Dreams]

I was kind of hoping someone would chip in with what it actually was.

It appears to be a rather formulaic construct, taking each weaponsystem in isolation, but I'm not sure of that.

[Redwolf]

It is known that it is mostly out of a formular with a few hand-tunings where it just didn't fit.

And obviously, the very basic parameters, esppecially the relation between artillery, armor and infantry, hand to be chosen by hand.

[Cthulhu Dreams]

Intresting. So this means no observation of the hostile capabailites where taken when considering prices?

I've noticed that the real value of units is heavily dependant on the avalibality of the counter - and even then some units are priced very oddly (The soviet 152MM 64 point spotters spring to mind)

[dieseltaylor]

Generally speaking your question has been raised for basically every incarnation of the game. Somebody always has some feeling that a piece was more effective than the price reflects - or vice versa.

The developers have improved things mightily, grogs have often fought each other to a standstill on a variety of weapons systems proving completely contrary facts of effectiveness on the same weapon!!!

The view that overall it - the cost and effectiveness - works and produces the right effect within the game for most weapons. You will no doubt be following the panther mantlet discussion in CMBB forum to appreciate the level of research possible : )

[Monty's Double]

In the words of the great W Edwards Deming; "All models are wrong, but some are useful". Personally, I find the CM points system quite useful.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Cthulhu Dreams:

Intresting. So this means no observation of the hostile capabailites where taken when considering prices?

Nope. Read my posting again and make a second guess.

[ September 16, 2004, 04:45 AM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

[Redwolf]

Actually the pricing scheme is pretty good, pretty close to the optimum that you can have unless you do a new one for each month/region.

How Cthulhu Dreams can come to the conclusion that combat capabilities have nothing to do with the prices and that BFC chose some magic formula, very carefully, only to ignore combat capabilities, is bejond me

[Monty's Double]

I guess what he's trying to get at is that the points value doesn't take into account the opposing force. So, a Sherman's high mg loadout is very useful against infantry but useless in an armour battle, but you pay the same points in both scenarios. Or, if you prefer, its short 75mm gun is fine against Pz IV's but next to useless against Tigers. But since you don't know what you will be facing until after your opponent has chosen, how could you possibly take that into account? And even if you could, how many variations would there be? Billions? Trillions?

BFC have assembled an awesome amount of data, but ultimately they've made judgement calls about whether 10mm of armour is worth more than 5mph in top speed. Anyone who can suggest a truly scientific system of points values is free to try. Get a good shrink first is my advice.

[Redwolf]

Some time ago I developed a dynamic pricing scheme based on what the biggest commonly available tank is. It was intended for TacOps but as a gedankenspiel we can use it for CM. It's only slightly less complicated than the 3D engine

[Japanzer]

I have question about Headcount Pricing.

Difference between Full and 60% is less 10%, while difference between Fit and Unfit is about 18%.

I think it is too little.

Is it tough handicap that one side has 60% troops and another side FULL on the casualities random QB ?

But, it seems not to be bug. In CMBB or CMAK, QB or Scenario editing, the same tendency exists.

Obviously BTS intends the price of Headcount undervalued.

It is difficult for me to understand the reason.

[Redwolf]

Japanzer, the reason is probably that you still get more units. This is a huge advantage from a movement and distribution standpoint, and for spotting and scouting.

The question how much they are worth is difficult to answer, because the morale effects are unknown. People usually assume that a squad which lost some of its members will always operate under a morale hit, that means degrade to a lower level more easily the more men it misses from the original headcount. Apart from the fact that this has never been established as a fact, even if it is true then it opens the question whether the casualties at game start have the same morale hit. If they do, then the Quickbattle option to fight with casualties is indeed a tremedous disadvantage.

[Japanzer]

Redwolf,

I see that the cheap and many units can get wide scouting and spotting area.

But, by the same token, it would not be wrong to say that casualities have disadvantage.

60% platoons often lack one squad. 60% squad can't often be splitted.

Casuality lower the abilitiy of scouting and spotting.

I agree the idea that units which have casulities at game start don't have morale degradation.

Maybe, morale degradation is caused by losting member, not by losted member.

Unfit units are likely to be more losted or captured than fit units.

So, in addtion to their poor combat power, they are cheap.

[ September 16, 2004, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: Japanzer ]

[Cthulhu Dreams]

Actually, we are talking past each other a bit.

What I was trying to say was the value of the russian 76MM gun changes *dramatically* with the introdcution of 80MM armored german tanks.

Similarly, the value of those tanks changes drastically when the russian 85MM gun is introduced in quanity.

I'm guessing that the BF formula takes no account of these "Breakpoints" - would I be correct in that statement. (Other breakpoints that spring to mind is the introduction of fausts to the german infantry, which if I recall recorretly does not change their price.)

I wasn't trying to say that the formula ignores the combat capality of a unit redwolf, only that it takes the ability of a unit in isolation with no regard for the avalibility of a counter.

To address the "scientic formula" consideration, I doubt thats the best option. QB pricing should only be concerned with balance and thats a matter for playtesting.

[ September 19, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Cthulhu Dreams ]

[Cthulhu Dreams]

Originally posted by Japanzer:

Redwolf,

So, in addtion to their poor combat power, they are cheap.

Actually - on the defense starting with casulties is great. You get ATG's with no real reduced combat value for half price. The casulties to the crew makes almost zero differences to their actual ability.

[Redwolf]

Exactly. Onboard mortars also have full ammo even with casualties, although you will lose some of it if too many men are missing.

You can buy bigger formations (platoons of tanks, battalions of infantry) at the discount and don't pay for it.

Unfortunately, the losses are also applied to artillery spotters which I think is not such a desirable feature.

[Japanzer]

What a silly man I am!

I've confounded QB and Scenario Editor.

In former, unit price doesn't change and available purchase point do.

Yes, in QB casualies units is cheap.

In sceanario editor, casualies units is expensive.(But, price in scenario would be no problem.)

ATG:

In addition to ammo, ROF(rate of fire) of ATG with casualities seems to be not bad.

[YankeeDog]

I think the important thing to put in perspective here is that the QB point system has to work for ALL time periods, in ALL terrain and weather conditions, on ALL size maps, ALL battle types, etc.

While it is certainly techically possible to create a system where the point value of units actually changes depending on the time period, or the map type, or the LOS conditions, or whatever, doing so would be EXTREMELY complicated and take quite a lot of research and programming hours, not to mention a considerable amount of playtesting to get all the values right.

BFC is a small company. They've grown a fair amount in the past couple of years, and to be honest I've kind of lost track of exactly who's actually on payroll these days and who's just a very involved playtester/vehicle skin designer, etc., but you're still looking at less than a half dozen people actually paid full time for all aspects of these games, from research and concept all the way up through marketing. And I believe there's still exactly one guy responsible for all the actual coding, the famous Charles.

So unless you want to wait another year or so for BFC to concept, code, and playtest a dynamic QB point system, I suggest you get used to a more or less "One size fits all" system for QB points.

Some minor tweaks might be possible, I suppose. I think the point system can be more problematic with CMAK and CMBB because of the sheer time span represented in these games; in CMBO it was less of a problem because the game only modeled the <1yr. from D-Day to VE-Day. When and if the CMX2 model does revisit the Med and the East Front, it might not be a bad idea to divide things up into 1-2 year "chunks" for the purpose of determining QB points. This would increase the work involved, but not to the same degree as a true dynamic point system would.

Cheers,

YD

[xerxes]

umm, if you'll notice when you set casualties to x% in a QB you get x% more points to spend. So, the cost per man remains the same. i.e. you can buy the same number of defenders in a 1,000 pt QB regardless of casualty level.

[tar]

Exactly. Onboard mortars also have full ammo even with casualties, although you will lose some of it if too many men are missing.

Don't you only lose the ammo if you move the unit and don't have enough guys to carry it? On defense, you can probably make use of the full load if your setup doesn't require repositioning.

[Cthulhu Dreams]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I think the important thing to put in perspective here is that the QB point system has to work for ALL time periods, in ALL terrain and weather conditions, on ALL size maps, ALL battle types, etc.

I'd like to note - this isn't what I was getting at.

Consider only the purchase screen, I don;t care about the battle type etc.

Okay, now, take 80MM stugs. They are the same price before and after 85MM guns are common for the soviets, but their actual worth has changed *REALLY SIGNIFICANTLY*

Before 85MM guns, they are uber stugs. After 85MM guns, they are merely tough.

This implies that the price of stugs was arrived out without consideration for the abilities of the AT weapons the other side of the table can get.

I was just curious if this is the case.

From the responses, the price was arrived it without consideration for the strength of the AT weapons on the other side of the table.

[Monty's Double]

I was just curious if this is the case.

Yes, you are correct, it is the case. However, the value of StuGs is affected by more than just availablity (and indeed rarity) of Russian 85mm guns. Only in fairly even armour battles with open terrain does the introduction of russkie tanks with 85mm guns have a big effect on the relative value of the StuGs. If you play lots of that type of battle then it seems like a big change. If, like me, you play lots of attack/defence scenarios with infantry or combined arms, the change is minimal. How can one pricing system possibly guess what types of game we prefer to play?

[Cthulhu Dreams]

I frequently play Attack defense on combined arms - (Stug pricing is irrelvant to infantry only engagements, obviously!) and a stug used as a mobile ATG position when you have 76.2MM guns is alot tougher than when you have 85MM guns.

Plus, pricing should only be based on the times units are effective, and if they are being choosen and used in an optimal manner.

Otherwise you can make a case that tigers should be worth less than t-34's because they are worth less in night scenarios in the mud and in the rain on the attack, or something equally silly.