dugfromthearth Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 My understanding is that the rarity score exists not to balance scenarios but to enforce historic use of unit types. Well looking at a typical game it seems to be completely off. Basically the Allies have the same number of troops, tanks, etc as the Germans. If that were true historically, the Germans might well have won. Now I don't have the exact numbers, but it seems to me that for historic accuracy the Allied units should have something like a -25% or -50% rarity rating, because they were more common then German troops. Sure scenarios might seem to be imbalanced because of it, but again rarity is not to create balance, it is to create historic accuracy of unit levels. Basically the Allies would have a tendency to win. Which would be historic, afaik. It strikes me as odd to use rarity to force the Allies to use the bad tanks against the German good tanks as was historic, but then not use it to give the Allies the numerical superiority they historically had. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beta1 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 The rarity system doesnt rate numbers of allied units agasint the number of axis ones - it compares the relative number of units on the same side. Its there not to model the larger number of allied tanks but to ensure that quick battles are not dominated by unit types that were not common at that time. To put it simply its to ensure that if the germans want to swan around in large numbers of tigers they have to pay through the nose to get them as there simply werent that many. On the other hand it means that common types like the panzer 4s should be seen more often. Equally in the allies it means not every sherman will be a firefly or a easy-8 as most people will go for an cheaper M4 instead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by dugfromthearth: It strikes me as odd to use rarity to force the Allies to use the bad tanks against the German good tanks as was historic, but then not use it to give the Allies the numerical superiority they historically had. Duh. Historically, Germans were on the defensive for most of the era, or if they attacked they tried to gather a local superiority (take Kasserine or Ardennes offensives for example). To reflect this, play Allied Attack battles. You really shouldn't think that meeting engagements were the norm in WW2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugfromthearth Posted December 16, 2003 Author Share Posted December 16, 2003 "to ensure that quick battles are not dominated by unit types that were not common at that time." Except that it does not do that. quick battles are dominated by panthers and pzrIV's, which were not nearly as common as shermans. Which is a huge problem and historic inaccuracy. If the Allies had been facing equal numbers of German tanks, you can bet they would have switched to producing tanks that were more effective against them, like fireflys. The game gives the Germans the advantage they faced on rare occassions - having equal numbers of equal or better tanks, and denies the Allies the advantage they had most of the time - having vastly greater numbers of inferior or equal tanks. If you look at a quick battle you do not see tanks being fielded in comparative numbers as they were historically. Instead you see the Germans having vastly more tanks then they had historically compared to the Allies. Every German formation includes tanks is as historically inaccurate as every German tank being a Tiger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 If you don't like rarity, turn it off. CMBO didn't have it, and QBs devolved into Panthers and Tigers vs. Jumbos and Hellcats. Over and over and over again. Or people used Fionn's rules, which were more limiting than the rarity rules - but at least you occasionally saw a regular Sherman tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugfromthearth Posted December 16, 2003 Author Share Posted December 16, 2003 Sergei I agree that meeting engagements were not the norm in WWII. I also suspect that the Allies did not think "We have 25% force superiority, we should attack. And we have 30 minutes to pull off the attack." I suspect the Allies attempted to mass 2 to 1 or greater odds before launching attacks. I mean if they decided "hey we have a 50/50 chance of winning, we should assault" they were extremely incompetent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugfromthearth Posted December 16, 2003 Author Share Posted December 16, 2003 Andrew - now that is something I can sympathize with. If you don't want every quick battle to be Tiger vs Jumbo, then just have the computer select the forces. Giving the player the illusion of choice of what to buy but then artificially dictating what they buy though pricing seems a strange system. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Dugfromtheearth, i understand what you mean, but simply have another look at the rarity setting and QuickBattles. They are not for giving historically accurate unit compsotions. Look at them as a bonus. If you want historically accurate, or more realistic battles, then you should stay away from QuickBattles and choose one of the many premade scenarios. There are so many interesting premade battles out there - from balanced to completely unbalanced - there's absolutely no need for you to use the QB-generator. It's only a bonus and can't replace the human genuity of the scenario makers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by dugfromthearth: My understanding is that the rarity score exists not to balance scenarios but to enforce historic use of unit types. Well looking at a typical game it seems to be completely off. Basically the Allies have the same number of troops, tanks, etc as the Germans. If that were true historically, the Germans might well have won. Now I don't have the exact numbers, but it seems to me that for historic accuracy the Allied units should have something like a -25% or -50% rarity rating, because they were more common then German troops. Sure scenarios might seem to be imbalanced because of it, but again rarity is not to create balance, it is to create historic accuracy of unit levels. Basically the Allies would have a tendency to win. Which would be historic, afaik. It strikes me as odd to use rarity to force the Allies to use the bad tanks against the German good tanks as was historic, but then not use it to give the Allies the numerical superiority they historically had. I think your whole premise for Rarity is off. AFAIK it was implemented with regards to historic availabilty and CM usefulness for competitive QBs. There has been many past discussions and debates on the way CM ranks usefulness. It works fairly well IMO, as neither I nor my opponents ever used any Armor Rules for QBs with CMBB as I had (necessary) with CMBO. If you desire more historical battles and/or situations, then as others have stated scenarios are the way to go. Ron 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 All that rarity does is to encourage people to choose units which were historically common for their force and time over those unit which were not. BTW, CMBO quickbattles didn't involve into Panthers and PZ IV battles, noone chose the Pz IV because its turret is vulnerable to 37mm and 40mm and there was no point getting a Panther over a Jagdpanther (because the MGs weren't very useful and the turret is slow). CMBO vehicle cherry picks were thick Churchill 95mm, Jumbo 75mm, Hetzer, Jagdpanther, Panzer IV/70, Cromwell 95mm, M8 HMC, Jackson, 251/9. BTW2, in CMAK the M8 HMC is 63 points by 10% rarity almost anytime. Now there's a stupid rarity number right there. Very disappointing. I wish we could load our own tables of rarity or prices. Just dreaming. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siege Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 I always thought it would be interesting to institute some type of slding rarity. For instance, if you would pick something with a positive rarity number, then the points cost to pick an additional one after that would be higher. This would help to simulate the fact that less would be available in the supply system, and it would be harder to find more people who would be willing to give up a King Tiger or other powerful unit. Conversely, if you pick something with a negative rarity... then after the first one you choose, any additional ones would cost less as you choose more (It would have to have some type of limit of course, and at much less of a rate than positive rarity). This would simulate units with excess of things they don't want trying to pawn them off on some poor sap that actually wants obsolete or useless units. -Hans 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugfromthearth Posted December 17, 2003 Author Share Posted December 17, 2003 I also found it strange that obsolete units cost more due to rarity. I wonder if rarity could be applied like the type restrictions (at 1000 points combined arms you can have say 300 points of support). So for 2000 points you would have the ability to purchase 1 rarity 200% thing, 2 rarity 100% things, etc. No extra cost, just limited access. So you might be able to have a Tiger in any large scenario, but just one (or tiger formation, however it is purchsed) I really like the rarity numbers for scenario design. It helps me decide what to include based on what was common. 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.