CMBB--New Proposal For Rarity System

[Col Deadmarsh]

I really don't see how this rarity thing is going to work in CMBB. Correct me if I'm wrong but in the upcoming game, if you choose rarity settings, you are penalized points for choosing armor or whatever that was only produced in small numbers during the war.

1st example: Player A has a penchant for King Tigers. He loves these babies and wants to take one in his next game. Why would he opt for the rarity option if he is going to take a big point hit for doing so? Why not simply find another game with an opponent that doesn't want to use the rarity system.

2nd example Player B is a grog who is starting a game with another grog, Player C. Both players like a realistic game with realistic forces. Both players want to use the rarity system to insure that their opponents also pick a realistic force. Neither are worried about taking point hits because they plan on taking only realistic forces in their mix. If both players only use realistic forces, what is the point of them playing a rarity game in the first place?

3rd example Player D is on a ladder where the points you get to spend need to be used carefully, with every unit taken needing to fill a purpose on the battlefield. With that in mind, why in the world would this person take anything with a penalty on it when it will decrease his chances of winning? This person plays to win. That is his motivation.

Now, after having written all this, I feel guilty because I have always been for more options in the game but I really can't understand the use of this feature. Namely because the bottom line to most people playing the game is WINNING. Hell, that's why I play and no way would I ever take something that would hinder my effect on the battlefield by sapping away my points in the CM store.

Now, I realize that some people do play for fun but aren't these the people who are into the realism aspect of the game? The people who want realistic forces just to enjoy a simulation of history? Well, if this is true then what need do they have for a rarity system?

I think what it comes down to is if you like taking unrealistic forces, why would you penalize yourself beforehand by playing in a rarity game where points will be taken away from you? If you like to use realistic forces only, what need do you have for such an option?

Whatever faction you fall into, all of them added up equals a very large portion of the CM community who seemingly don't need a rarity option for their game.

Like I said, I've always been for more options but I honestly can't see the need for this one in CMBB.

Proposed Solution:Instead of having players take a point hit when choosing rarity units, why not have a randomly-generated unit availability list when players choose to play with the rarity factor. So in a rarity game, when players go into the unit choosing screen, they will see a number next to each unit that is part of the rarity system. This number denotes that the unit has only so many numbers available to that player. In other words, a player sees that there is only 1 Puma available to him in that battle depending upon a variety of factors: time inparticular. In another battle, he might not have any Pumas available to him at all. In addition to this, in computer-generated battles, the computer will crunch numbers and figure out what rarity units, if any, will be given to each player.

At least this would eliminate the self-imposed penality of the current system that is to be installed in CMBB. This way, two people can get together and still play their game with realistic forces and yet the chance for having a rare unit in the game is possible without a penalty to one of the players.

What CM offers now is the historical accuracy to buy only what had been produced at that time in the war. Let's expand on that in CMBB and give the game a random factor in determining what rarity units the players will have in their games using the rarity option: not by self-imposed penalities but by a simple roll of the computer dice.

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]</p>

[Wilhammer]

It will be optional.

Also, because of BTS's commitment to accuracy, the rarity system will provide us with a quick built in tool to determine what was rare.

[Mace]

I think the Rarity option is a very good idea.

Especially when both players agree to a QB with a historic unit mix - the rarity option, by restricting purchases, reduces the need to have a pre-game discussion deciding what vehicles are in and out.

Mace

[kmead]

In addition, occaisionally, the vaunted King Tiger (or some other uber wagen) wil be unexpectedly cheap in some games on particular dates. This will no doubt bring a much needed level of variability to games that might otherwise be staid interactions between relatively evenly matched opponents.

[Herr Kruger]

The rarity system is a GREAT idea.. consider this board has a lot of threads with people saying "Oh, I always face Pumas blah blah blah and only x number were made wah wah" so why not implement it? It's optional, it's there for you to use... if you want it.

[Slapdragon]

To amplify what everyone else said, rarity is optional.

I suspect the hardcore types will play under no other system, and the ladders will use it, so if you want to play the ladders or the better players likely you are stuck, but otherwise no one will be putting a gun to the end users head demanding its use. It is, afterall, optional.

[Col Deadmarsh]

I am aware that the rarity feature is optional and I agree that it could be useful to a lot of players but only if it is used in the fashion that I described earlier--this means having the computer determine what rarity units will be available to the players in each situation, not self-imposed penalties by the players for taking units that are rarities.

My understanding is that BTS intends to have people use the "self-imposed" penalty method which makes no sense whatsoever. No one will want to do this!

Read my proposal again because all I'm hearing right now is "I like the rarity option." Does this mean you agree with me or are you just agreeing to a rarity option in general?

[The Commissar]

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

No one will want to do this!

<hr></blockquote>

Speak for yourself, please. I for one like BTS' idea.

If I am expecting a realistic game, I will enable the rarity option. This will prevent my opponent from purchasing unrealistic forces.

Sure, I could stay in a chatroom or send e-mails back and forth for a few days deciding what we want to consider rare or not. The rarity system is the better option.

What you seem to fear is that no one will use the rarer units because they will cost more. I disagree. If I find a good use for a mildly rare unit, I will buy one under favorable circumstances. Say, a Sturmtiger in a large city battle.

In fact, because I try to play mainly large battles (3000 points +), the rarity option will serve to limit the abuse of rare units (an armored company of Hetzers, for example), but will not eliminate the presence of rare units entirely.

I think you're fussing too much over nothing.

[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: The Commissar ]</p>

[JonS]

Also, in 'computer pick' games the rarity factor will be very much to the fore IMHO.

[ParaBellum]

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

My understanding is that BTS intends to have people use the "self-imposed" penalty method which makes no sense whatsoever. No one will want to do this!

<hr></blockquote>

BTS makes us do something? Never heard about that before...

I guess it's pretty simple. You like it, use this option. You don't like it, don't use it.

I personally like the idea of the rarity system. It will force me if I choose to use it to play with (at least some kind of) historical forces. For me, this is fun.

[Sledge59]

Dang, I knew it all along...

The world is flat.

Too bad this rarity thing won't teach us more about how things really were... bummer.

[citizen]

First thing I'm gonna do with CMBB is set up a 400 point computer generated forces battle with full rarity options on. I will be amused to see my forces include one mortar team and a 375 point rare tank.

I think this optional rarity system is fine, but instead of making battles more diverse, there will be some months (or years) of the war where you will see nothing but one type of tank as all others have inflated prices. Might be realistic. We'll see if it makes things too predictable.

I too would like to see a rarity option that allows the computer to make certain items available unavailable and some items available in quantities of 1 or 2 max.

The more options the better.

Citizen

[Vanir Ausf B]

Colonel D: You are forgetting that there are actually 2 rarity systems in CMBB; fixed and variable. The one you describe is fixed, and I suspect it will be the less popular of the 2 by a large margin.

A good thing about rarity is that it makes things rougher on "system" players. Also, a lot of players don't know what units were rare or common, so the game needs to tell them.

The alternate method you proposed has been proposed and discussed before.

[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

[Panzer Leader]

Speaking of this, is there any "semi-official" word on this subject? Any threads where Steve or one of the boys laid out the feature?

I think we need to take a look at how it will ACTUALLY work before we go making pronouncements about it.

[Col Deadmarsh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Colonel D: You are forgetting that there are actually 2 rarity systems in CMBB; fixed and variable. The one you describe is fixed, and I suspect it will be the less popular of the 2 by a large margin.

A good thing about rarity is that it makes things rougher on "system" players. Also, a lot of players don't know what units were rare or common, so the game needs to tell them.

The alternate method you proposed has been proposed and discussed before.

[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]<hr></blockquote>

So there's 2 rarity options in CMBB? Now I'm really confused. :confused:

Vanir, can you please elaborate?

[Warmaker]

Before the bigger guns and panzers come rolling in, I'll be jumping for joy with those long gunned 75's on the PzKpfw IV. Those T-34s are going to be a pain...

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

So there's 2 rarity options in CMBB? Now I'm really confused. :confused:

Vanir, can you please elaborate?<hr></blockquote>

Fixed rarity is basically what you described in you first post: The more rare the unit at the particular date you are playing at, the more it will cost. For example a Tiger I in Jan '43 may cost 600 points and it will always cost 600 points in Jan '43.

Variable rarity means the unit costs varies from game to game semi-randomly. So Tiger I in Jan. '43 may cost around 600 pts in most games, sometimes it will cost more, and sometimes it will cost less, sometimes even as little as it would if rarity were not being used at all. This will be more popular than fixed rarity because of the fact that it only makes the appearance of rare units rare in games, rather than un-heard of with fixed rarity (who in their right mind will ever pay 600 for a Tiger?).

BTW, those prices are made-up to illustrate the point. I don't really know what a Tiger I in Jan '43 will cost.

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

[Col Deadmarsh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Fixed rarity is basically what you described in you first post: The more rare the unit at the particular date you are playing at, the more it will cost. For example a Tiger I in Jan '43 may cost 600 points and it will always cost 600 points in Jan '43.<hr></blockquote>

And I say that this way of doing things is ridiculous because you are forced to impose a penalty upon yourself.

And what about computer-generated games? How will this work? Does the computer automatically dock you on points when it gives you a rarity unit in a game?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Variable rarity means the unit costs varies from game to game semi-randomly. So Tiger I in Jan. '43 may cost around 600 pts in most games, sometimes it will cost more, and sometimes it will cost less, sometimes even as little as it would if rarity were not being used at all. This will be more popular than fixed rarity because of the fact that it only makes the appearance of rare units rare in games, rather than un-heard of with fixed rarity (who in their right mind will ever pay 600 for a Tiger?).

<hr></blockquote>

This isn't much different than the above method. The only thing you are changing is the fact that penalties will vary in cost upon the time of the war. You're still imposing a penalty on yourself or the computer will impose a penalty on you for selecting a rarity unit.

You said that my proposal was being used in CMBB but this is not true. My proposal is the following: Rarity should be a "roll of the dice" by the computer to see what units are available for you to purchase or what you are given in computer-generated games, not to impose a penalty on your spending.

You are talking about something completely different.

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]</p>

[Andreas]

I really do not see what your proposal would add. The only thing it would do is take choice away from the player, namely the choice to pay over the odds for a unit they want to use. Taking choice away is not good. If they don't want to have rare units, they won't buy them, and they just go for the available stuff, and that's it. Economists call that the elasticity of demand (the reaction of demand to price changes). Unlike many other things in micro-economics, I believe this one will work in CMBB.

Anyway, in your list of examples you forgot a very important 4th one, which I believe will be quite common:

4) Would like to play historically correct, but is not up to speed on the correct TO&E of a mid-1942 Red Army mechanised battalion.

This is where the rarity system will also help a lot.

Also - what is the point of bringing this up now? As Steve has indicated elsewhere, work has been undertaken on the system. Yours is really not that great a proposal that it is worth delaying CMBB for it.

Finally - the optional rarity system will give you the choice to exercise the option to either use it, or not. What's the problem?

[Thermopylae]

I suppose if we were to go for the ultimate in realism we could crossindex the industiral productions of the nations, resources, available, relative industrial production cost, mainetenance needed, and all the other million and one factors that go into creating an AFV, and the resultant price, chance of the unit not showing up, etc would allow players to determine the rarity of units. But for lack of something that complex, an abstract rarity system such as the on being proposed will do nicely.

Also Col_D.: Why would you dock yourself points? Your not docking yourself points if you don't buy the rare items...so just consider it another part of the game to play to win: do I really need that tiger is a significantly more difficult question if you could pick up 3 mk IVs instead. Maybe you go for it, the same way you might invest in veterans in CM, and it surpirses your opponent and wins the day...its just the gamble is a little more in proportion now. And as everyone noted..it is an option.

[dalem]

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

Now, I realize that some people do play for fun but aren't these the people who are into the realism aspect of the game? The people who want realistic forces just to enjoy a simulation of history? Well, if this is true then what need do they have for a rarity system?

<hr></blockquote>

Well, I consider myself a 'fairly knowledgeable' student of the period, and I'm very happy to see a rarity system coming along. Allow me a few points:

My knowledge of WWII is concentrated on exactly the time period and theater CM:BO covers, and my expertise lessens as I explore other areas. I tend to fall in the category of "usually plays for fun, likes to win, almost always will want an 'historical' force".

1. I would welcome a rarity system for use in the current CM:BO game because

• even though I can usually pick an historical force, I don't always want to spend the time,
• I don't know everything,
• I don't know nearly everything.

2. For a semi-grog like myself, a rarity system is even more important for CM:BB: obviously the less I know about a theater or Front or nationality or time period, and the more I want to be historical, then the more necessary such a system becomes.

-dale

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: dalem ]</p>

[Michael Dorosh]

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

I suppose if we were to go for the ultimate in realism we could crossindex the industiral productions of the nations, resources, available, relative industrial production cost, mainetenance needed, and all the other million and one factors that go into creating an AFV, and the resultant price, chance of the unit not showing up, etc would allow players to determine the rarity of units. But for lack of something that complex, an abstract rarity system such as the on being proposed will do nicely.<hr></blockquote>

No, the ultimate in reality would be not to play with tanks at all 90 percent of the time, and to consider yourself damn glad when a tank should show up at all on your side.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

You said that my proposal was being used in CMBB but this is not true.<hr></blockquote>

You need to go back an reread what I wrote. I said your proposal had been proposed and debated before. I did not say it was being used in CMBB.

[Kwazydog]

Heya Guys

To be honest, I dont really understand what the concerns here are. The rarity system has been in CMBB now for some time and I can tell you I have not played a game without it since, nor does the idea of doing so appeal to me (but that is just my preference).

A perfect example of the rarity system is in a game I recently played with variable rarity turned on. I cant remember the *exact* details but it should give you a fair idea of how it worked. It was May '42, and I was playing as the axis player.

After examining the armour purchase options I decide to purchase 2 late model Pz-IIIj's as my main AT vehicles. These were about 10% more than their standard purchase price, but they did have the longer barrel 50mm so I decided to purchase them over the slightly cheaper early models so they at least had some chance against the T-34's.

Now, with my remaining points I had two options. I could purchase two common Pz-II's (these were cheaper than usual if I recall) which would have been great against infantry or one more expensive AT vehicle. As I suspected my opponent was going to take big and nasty tanks I decided to purchase an early model Marder III with its 76mm gun. It cost me maybe 30-40% more than usual which is probably a little cheaper than it should have been due to the variable rarity, but I figured the 76mm would be worth the price.

And yes, it was. My opponent bought a platoon of KV-I's (1941 models) and currently my 76mm Marder has killed 3 out of 4 of them at the loss of 2 of my Pz-IIIJ's. Now, if my opponent had purchased a lot more infantry I would have been better off with the better value Pz-II's, but I made the right choice.

What seems kinda ridiculous to me would be a system that may force me to choose from only Pz-II's and Pz-III's in a particular battle (which were the more common vehicles of the time) and thus force me into playing a battle which I have next to no chance of winning.

Dont get me wrong here though, I too talked to Steve about the above method as I too thought it would be better, but after playing with this system I personally feel that it is 10 times better than the 'forced selection' method.

Dan

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]</p>

[Wolfpack]

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

A perfect example of the rarity system is in a game I recently played with variable rarity turned on. I cant remember the *exact* details but it should give you a fair idea of how it worked. It was May '42, and I was playing as the axis player

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]<hr></blockquote>

Oh come on...we all know you just wanted to do this to make us all envious of the fact that you're getting to play the game while we have to wait for it.