1000pt Meeting Engagement Allied Artillery

[REVS]

OK, the lack of response from anyone from BFC has got me annoyed on this topic. Here's a simple test...

Went back to this popular format for gamers in CMBO and this is what you get for Allies.

1000pt meeting engagment artillery. Choose from:

75mm

81mm

4.2 inch mortars

4.5 inch

1000pt meeting engagement in CMBB, choose from:

82mm spotter

76 mm spotter

120mm spotter

107 mm spotter

This is what you get in CMAK 1000pt meeting engagement.

Nuffink!!!

Oh fabulous reform! Oh what a marvellous design improvement!!!!

We've had threads about "minor quibbles" about CMAK artillery, and we've had threads about "Allied Arty".

But the perpetrators of this wonderful game design improvement have taken vows of silence as their preferred mode of response to customer enquiries. There has been not a peep from them so far...

So how come it's such a wonderful idea to deprive Allied players of any artillery whatsoever in 1000pt meeting engagements in CMAK?

Huh? Huh? Please, a polite request for a skerrick of debate here boys? What's so good about denying artillery to the allied side on this game format that oodles of PBEM players choose?

[Redwolf]

He, easy.

BFC doesn't like to comment on this stuff since Charles is busing coding the patch and the others don't want to promise things that turn out Charles can't get in easily after all.

Having said that, the less-ammo/lower-price solution is obviously not a big coding problem but a policy thing, so it might be more worth interacting with us (AFAIK there are no real Quickbattlers in BFC and the issue affects only those).

[JasonC]

More constructively, I have seen other problems with the present state of arty and suggest the following corrections.

First, the lower point budget for artillery in MEs is obviously not popular and isn't wanted. Leave it 25% as in typical attacks and defenses. (Personally, I'd like to see the US have 30% arty budgets, if not 50% in "assaults", as more accurately reflecting the role of fire support in US tactics - but that is a quibble).

Perhaps it was thought armor heavy MEs in North Africa would see little arty. But this neglects Italy, US ways of fighting, and the role MEs have for players interested more in even conditions that supposed realism (which is dubious in this case anyway). So get rid of the half-sized arty budget limits for MEs.

Second, the US 105mm module doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It is 6 tube. That corresponds to US regimental cannon companies, and to SP arty in armor divisions. But the bulk of 105 missions were fired by infantry division div arty, thus from division level batteries with 4 tubes.

The obvious solution to this realism issue aka mistake, and the point size problem that makes a 360 pt FO useless, is to include a 4 tube division level 105 FO in addition to the 6 tube regimental one.

The ammo can be reduced to 80 rounds, thus the same firing time from the smaller number of tubes. The response time automatically goes down slightly for a division level asset (not necessarily realistic, but that is how it presently works). In line with other prices - which clearly follow a blast per point spent sort of formula, with slight adjustments for radio or not and response time - the base price of this 80 round 4 tube 105mm FO would start around 215. (240 vs. 360 for 2/3rds the shells, -10% for slower response time as divisional vs. regimental).

This would not cause balance problems. The blast per point spent, at 42, would be less than the Germans get with their own 105s (46 with a phone spotter). In addition, it would make 105s available as regulars in 900 point games, as greens probably in 800 point games (when combined with the above revision of ME arty point budgets).

And it would be realistic. Most missions were fired by division level 4 tube batteries, not regimental level 6 tube ones. In most fights, the US would have a choice of 81s and 105s, the most likely support weapons for smaller engagements. In battles above 1000 points, 155s would also usually be available (as greens at first, but any reasonable quality for e.g. 1500 point fights and upward).

Right now, the only way to get realistic amounts of HE support as the Americans is to buy 105mms on map (or Priests) and use direct fire. This is not realistic.

[YankeeDog]

My this topic spawns a lot of threads. . .

I'm mostly in agreement with Jason's ideas - I think adding a divisional level 105mm spotter with a slower response, lower tube count, and smaller ammo load would go a long way towards fixing the problem. Combined with somewhat higher arty budgets, I think things get even better.

I would actually advocate making this spotter a 60-shell spotter, rather than an 80-shell spotter. Assuming a 60-shell US 105mm spotter would be somewhere around 175pts., this would allow the US player to take multiple 105mm spotters in 1000-15000pt. attacks and assaults, something that strikes me as very realistic. It also put the US 105 divisional spotter on an exact equivalent with the German one in terms of shells, which will probably satisfy the QB ladder types who want fairness and equivalent purchase options.

I would also note that a divisional 105mm VT spotter should be added - 105mm VT is presently a ridiculously unaffordable 511 pts. for a regular spotter.

As icing on the cake I would also like to see a lower shell load US 81mm spotter to balance out the very cheap (but small tube and shell #) German 75mm spotters - maybe a US 81mm spotter in the 120-shell range or so. I don't have the references in front of me, but IIRC some US battalion TOE featured a 3-tube 81mm battery, so perhaps a reduced load 81mm spotter should be a 3-tube battery.

Cheers,

YD

[Redwolf]

The only thing I am afraid of is that sneaking in other change request will detract from the IMHO most important thing and straightforward, price reduction.

Or in other words, before BFC tosses out a whole package of changes I'd rather take just the ammo thing.

[Sanok]

Originally posted by redwolf:

BFC doesn't like to comment on this stuff since Charles is busing coding the patch and the others don't want to promise things that turn out Charles can't get in easily after all.

Boo hoo. There's something called customer relations.

I have CMBO and CMBB. I really want to purchase CMAK, because I want to play the Americans. However, the more I hear about the game, the more I want to save my money instead of throwing it away on a game that appears to be a number of steps down from CMBB.

[Redwolf]

No, CMAK is much better than CMBB, at least IMHO. They lightend (but not removed) most of the things that annoyed me about CMBB. I can't think of anything that is worse - except for the Allied artillery in Quickbattles.

[REVS]

Redwolf, you've moderated in recent times. I remember your famous 'uber-tank' and other threads when you opposed the arrogance of BFC quite heroically.

Put simply these excellent designers of an excellent game have got it hopelessly wrong on Allied artillery this time round in CMAK, and for whatever reasons you imagine they currently don't have time to talk to their customers about it.

Success breeds arrogance, and arrogance breeds a loss of contact with the customer, and though it takes times, this loss of contact with the customer is the fertile ground upon which the next competitor comes along and sows the seed of the next generation that kicks the butt of the arrogant old guys who didn't want to listen to their customers, and slowly went out of business.

[Redwolf]

Where is a sheep smiley when you need it

I just continue to be careful with certain BFC staff's conclusion mechanism. Mixing up a very simple and safe-coding suggestion like "drop the freakin' ammo" with even slightly more advanced suggestions can get the the whole thing tossed out like the baby with the water.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Sanok:

I have CMBO and CMBB. I really want to purchase CMAK, because I want to play the Americans. However, the more I hear about the game, the more I want to save my money instead of throwing it away on a game that appears to be a number of steps down from CMBB.

Step up for you is that you can play the Americans. Step down is that they can't use arty in 1000pts QBs. The latter outweighs the former .

Ever considered playing anything but MEs? Ever considered playing a 800 pts US Probe vs 30% bonus Axis on a pre-made map with set flags as in a ME? It won't get you a 105mm FO though...

Playing a 1500pts ME with a gentleman's agreement to spend no more than 1000 pts (you can swap setups afterwards if the other side claims you bought more)?

Asking a third party to create a random map in the editor, buy an US 105mm FO, edit the amount of ammo, give the US side an according negative bonus according to the value of the reduced ammo FO and then start a game?

Other creative ways to get roughly 1000 pts as both players and enough arty pts for the US player?

...If there is a workaround, it is not a bug.

Gruß

Joachim

[YankeeDog]

I would actually argue the contrary. If there is a workaound, it is by definition a bug, it's just not a fatal bug.

All of the "workarounds" you propose are some combination of (1) incomplete (as in 800pt. probe, as you mention, still can't buy 105mm, and also changes victory calculations and setup zone), (2) have negative side effects (as in setting for 1500pts. and playing only 1000 - this alters both map size and victory calaculation), or (3) just plain a pain in the @ss, (as in having someone else set up things for you).

To be clear, I am in complete agreement with Redwolf. Number one priority is getting some sort of reduced price 105mm and 25pdr. spotter. If the only way to get this due to code and time restrictions is to simply drop the ammo loads of current spotters, than so be it. This would mess up the play balance in already built scenarios somewhat, but they would be easily fixable.

The other Arty tweaks I mentioned above, such as JasonC's Div arty spotter, a reduced load (and reduced tube?) 81mm spotter, higher arty budgets, etc. are further suggestions IF time and code allow. I have no idea how easy it is to add units to the database. Additional arty spotters obviously would require no new 3D models, so it might be as simple as adding a line and a few parameters in some database table somewhere in the program. OTOH, it might be much more complicated.

I will happily accept "better, but still imperfect" over no improvement at all.

Cheers,

YD

[flamingknives]

The 25 pdr spotter could quite easily be reduced in cost by including a troop spotter - each battery consisted of 2 4-gun troops - so nr. guns halved, ammo load halved, points greatly reduced and this level of support would be appropriate for a 1000pts game.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The 25 pdr spotter could quite easily be reduced in cost by including a troop spotter - each battery consisted of 2 4-gun troops - so nr. guns halved, ammo load halved, points greatly reduced and this level of support would be appropriate for a 1000pts game.

Mike

How often did troops fire independently? So far I have always assumed, and that maybe wrong, that the main tactical unit was the battery, not the troop. It is, IMO, not alright to 'break' historically correct doctrine to fix a problem in an ahistorical part of the game. Your proposed solution forces scenario designers to employ all sorts of workarounds, that are unenforcable, and therefore undesirable. It is quite different from the simple solution of reducing ammo loadout, which a designer could fix in the design screens.

[flamingknives]

Not sure. Just as you assumed the battery as basic unit, I assumed the troop.

Certainly each troop was located seperately and each had its own FO, although this was routed through a battery exchange before reaching the guns.

If you retain the battery spotter and simply add a troop spotter, then that makes no difference to scenario designers.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Not sure. Just as you assumed the battery as basic unit, I assumed the troop.

Certainly each troop was located seperately and each had its own FO, although this was routed through a battery exchange before reaching the guns.

Are you sure that each troop had its own spotter, out in the field? That was not the impression I got from reading Blackburn.

Originally posted by flamingknives:

If you retain the battery spotter and simply add a troop spotter, then that makes no difference to scenario designers.

Yes, that would be the ideal solution.

[Beta1]

I agree with flamingknives. Add a 4 gun FO or a half ammo FO. That way the historically accurate can continue with their full battery support on the rare occasions it can be purchased and the rest of us can actually use artillery for once.

Note, not ADD a reduced FO type not REPLACE

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

Not sure. Just as you assumed the battery as basic unit, I assumed the troop.

Certainly each troop was located seperately and each had its own FO, although this was routed through a battery exchange before reaching the guns.

Are you sure that each troop had its own spotter, out in the field? That was not the impression I got from reading Blackburn. </font>

[Madmatt]

Wow, we work out butts off trying to get the 1.01 patch out to you guys and suddenly we are accussed of ignoring customers and being arrogant. Nice.

With the forthcoming 1.01 patch I tried multiple 1000 point QB's and chose Allies (US) and with a 1000 points I have access to about 175 points in which I could buy a 81mm Mortar battery (Radio or wire) or a 75mm battery (Radio). Depending on region and date I might also have access to some airsupport.

British and Commonwealth forces have access to 3inch mortar batteries.

Please understand that a meeting engagement by its very definition is supposed to represent manuever units from two opposing forces that encounter each other UNEXPECTEDLY as they each race for a common goal. To put it another way, neither side is situated in a defensive or a formal pre-planned offensive posture. As such, access to the larger artillery assets is limited on purpose.

And please remember, we ARE listening and working hard to make CMAK the best game it can be but that doesn't always mean we are going to change something that we don't agree with or always be able to answer every thread that pops up about something as soon as we would like.

Madmatt

[Redwolf]

I guess that settles it then.

Yes I'll watch the door not hitting me.

[ January 27, 2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[YankeeDog]

Matt -

Thanks for the response. I'm sorry if you guys feel kind of put on with all this discussion about Arty pricing and units available. It certainly was not my intention when I started the original thread on this subject to create a "slam the game developers" atmosphere here on the forum.

Honestly, with the exception of a few unproductive comments by a couple of people, I think most of the discussion of this topic has been interesting and offered up a number of possible solutions to this issue. If nothing else, it has certainly offered up a sampling of player opinions on the topic. I'm glad to hear it's been read by you guys, and I certainly didn't *expect* a response from you or anybody else at BFC.

I do have a couple of responses to your comments, though:

1) Unless this has been changed in the 1.01 patch, the Arty Budget in *most* 1000pt. QBs is 125pts., not 175pts. The major execption is the "Unrestricted" force type. Post-July 1944, the 125pt. budget eliminates both 81mm spotters (radio and wire) from the choices you list for American, though you can just squeeze the 81mm (radio) spotter if you buy him Green. Furthermore, if you play with rarity on, the 75mm spotter gets eliminated as well due to his +20% rarity, leaving NO arty spotters available to the American players. I would wager that, for example 1000pt. ME, Combined Arms, post-July 1944 is a pretty darn common QB type.

2) Again, speaking personally (and I think for many others who have posted on this topic), my primary objection is to the relative dearth of Allied arty options in small to mid-sized QBs COMPARED to the options the German player has. If you want to eliminate arty options at this level for both sides, fine. Right now, that's not the net effect of the current arty organization and pricing, though. In QBs below the 1500pt. level of any type, there are dramatically more arty options available to the German player than the allied player. This strikes me as both ahistorical and less fun.

OK, I think I've probably started to repeat myself on this topic a bit, so I'll shut up now. If there isn't a 'fix' eventually, I will certainly be disappointed, and I but I'm not going to go off on some sort of anti-BFC diatribe. To me it's all about trying to make a good game better. In the end, it's your game and your choice, though.

Cheers,

YD

[Redwolf]

I don't really know why you bother.

Contrary to what Madmatt claims, he obviously did not read any of the many threads about the issue.

He doesn't know that the Germans get heavy artillery under the same conditions, which is turning historical reality around. He would know if he read any of the threads.

He doesn't know that the 105mm is one of the most unaffordable modules in the whole game, but in the timeframe with American involvement in WW2 probably the most often shot kind of shell of the whole war after 81mm mortars. CMAK makes many historically rare modules much more common than many historically common modules. Madmatt would know if he actually read one of the threads.

He doesn't know that these limits which he might think are fine for MEs still don't allow Americans to attack with 105mm which is a realism joke.

He doesn't know that the Germans can shell the heck out of Allies in any kind of TCP/IP size CMAK battle, but in MEs in particular - and that although the Germans were historically much more hampered to move artillery around to have them ready for unexpected meetings. How is that for realism, and for following player's comments?

He doesn't know that the increase in U.S. artillery reaction times in June 1944 pushes even the most common modules out of the picture. If he had, as he claims he did, read any of the threads, he would be aware of the problem, it was mentioned in all these threads. The result is that at the time where in reality U.S. artillery was the most overwhelming it is rarest in CMAK battles.

I didn't accuse BFC of not listening to their own forum with customers until now (and I didn't start any of the artillery price threads), but Madmatt's reply makes the real picture painstakingly obvious. There is a very selective kind of attention going on here.

Contrary to common believe, many Quickbattle players, while they don't recreate one particular historic event, do care a lot about realism and realistic OOBs. It is more of a military exercise for a new situation than an analysis of an old situation. Most people I play don't cherry-pick individual units, they pick one of many imagined OOBs with some imagined reinforcements from higher HQ. I don't understand why BFC is effectively suppressing the purchase of realistic artillery for the Allies, while they allow it for the Germans. Oh, I understand the 'why" allright. It is a mistake - when the ammo counts were designed nobody thought of that problem. What's the big deal to correct it now?

[Madmatt]

Redwolf, I would advise you to stop with the ranting as I don't appreciate it. No where did I say that I have read every thread on this topic and I will admit that I have not as I have been busy with other matters but that in no way gives you a free pass to "harp on Matt". If you want to spend your time posting all about the things I DON'T know then you had better block off a big chunk of time and do it somewhere else, I might add.

Now, after reading Yankeedog's reply I see why my test was getting different results than what you guys are seeing. I did use Unrestricted as my force choice and therefore got 175 Artillery points while a selection of Combined Arms or Infantry does provide only 125.

I do also understand that there is a disparity between what the Germans can effectively bring to the table as opposed to what the Allies can in the Artillery category for QB's.

I WILL start up an internal discussion today with the rest of the team to look into this and see if they think there is something that can or will be done to help address it.

My original comments in the above post were not originally directed at you redwolf, but they certainly are now and seemed to have gone right over your head. The thing is that there are only a few of us, we are not (gasp) omnipotent and (double gasp) don't always have the time to read every forum post and keep up to date on some of the older topics or questions raised. We do as best we can and YES we do sometimes skim and scan the topics. There is simply not enough time to do otherwise.

What that means is that sometimes topics don't always get our direct focused attention as soon as people would like but that doesn't mean we are ignoring them intentionally.

More often than not, threads tend to wobble back and forth between important factual based info (which we could then use to improve the game) and mindless rambling and rhetoric which, quite frankly, is fatiguing to always have to wade through.

Anyway, I don't want to become guilty of doing the same so let me once more clarify that I WILL be taking this issue, as you guys have reported it here, to the rest of the team and then we will see what happens. That's the best that I can do at the moment.

Madmatt

[ January 28, 2004, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Madmatt ]

[Beta1]

Three cheers for Madmatt.

hip hip, (etc.)

[Madmatt]

Originally posted by Beta1:

Three cheers for Madmatt.

hip hip, (etc.)

Aw shucks...

I'm not a robot without emotions-I'm not what you see...

I've come to help you with your problems, so we can be free...

I'm not a hero, I'm not a saviour, forget what you know...

I'm just a man whose circumstances went beyond his control...

Beyond my control-we all need control...

I need control-we all need control...

Madmatt

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Beta1:

Three cheers for Madmatt.

hip hip, (etc.)

Aw shucks...

I'm not a robot without emotions-I'm not what you see...

I've come to help you with your problems, so we can be free...

I'm not a hero, I'm not a saviour, forget what you know...

I'm just a man whose circumstances went beyond his control...

Beyond my control-we all need control...

I need control-we all need control...

Madmatt </font>