I can not seem to find the explanation of the rarity values in the manual.

Abbott · September 25, 2002

Would anyone happen to know the page number in the manual?

[ September 24, 2002, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

IronChef4 · September 25, 2002

ditto

IronChef4 · September 25, 2002

I believe that I have figured it out. That much (80% or 40% or whatever) is added to the points of the next unit of the same kind that you buy. Lets say that you have a flamethrower with 20% rarity that costs 20 points. Weeeeell. . . if you buy another one. . .it'll cost you 24 points. . .and ianother after that will cost you about 29 points. . . I think this is how it works.

Dowarisch · September 25, 2002

I got the strange feeling that this option is broken. I just tried to purchase the same equipment in different years so that the rarity factor varies, rarity is set to standard. But no matter what I try the points value remains the same.

Abbott · September 25, 2002

There is a "variable" option. I am wondering what the difference between "standard" and variable" is.

Dowarisch · September 25, 2002

On standard the values are close to the historical facts, variable can give random rarity numbers.

Bullethead · September 25, 2002

Abbott said:

There is a "variable" option. I am wondering what the difference between "standard" and variable" is.

Rarity is kinda complex. IIRC, standard rarity considers not only the relative frequency of a given unit in an entire army, but also varies with time and region of the front. Using standard rarity alone therefore results in a rather generic run of units, based on the assumption that units were evenly distributed along the front. However, this is modified somewhat by favored units like SS and Guards getting the better stuff. So standard rarity is sometimes less for these forces than for regular forces.

Variable rarity adds yet another factor on top of the above. Basically, it recognizes the fact that units were usually deployed in formations of the same type. IOW, instead of being spread evenly over the whole front, the rare units would be found concentrated in isolated clumps. So while there might only be 10 Panthers in a whole Panzerkorps at some point, all 10 would probably be in the same company.

So what happens with variable rarity is that there is a random chance that the cost for some of the rare units might be lower than normal in any given scenario. You never know which units this will affect or how much, it's just luck of the draw. Thus, variable rarity is intended to break up the monotony of the same old units for a certain point in time and region of the front.

IronChef4 · September 25, 2002

HAHAHAH. . .ok, now I feel stupid.

Dowarisch · September 25, 2002

That´s all nice and good but so far I haven´t seen any difference in cost for a unit, no matter what the rarity is.

For example with rarity set to standard: In June 1941 the Renault-35 costs 34 points with a rarity of 65%. In June 1943 the same vehice still costs 34 points but has a rarity of 200%. Or does the rarity factor not influence the cost but maybe the way the AI shops ???

Gyrene · September 25, 2002

Hey Abbott, now that we both have the game how's about a small PBEM match to get warmed up?

Gyrene

MrSpkr · September 25, 2002

Originally posted by Dowarisch:
That´s all nice and good but so far I haven´t seen any difference in cost for a unit, no matter what the rarity is.

For example with rarity set to standard: In June 1941 the Renault-35 costs 34 points with a rarity of 65%. In June 1943 the same vehice still costs 34 points but has a rarity of 200%. Or does the rarity factor not influence the cost but maybe the way the AI shops ???

It makes a difference in tht price you pay for the same unit at the same time and location.

I looked at German armor prices in Central Russia in July 1943. Without Rarity on, a Tiger (PzVIE) cost 203. With Standard Rarity, that same Tiger has a rarity factor of 30% -- and it's new cost is 263.

Perhaps rarity did not affect your vehicle's price because you were examining it in terms of two different dates? It could be thatthe dates made a significant difference in rarity, but that the base price dropped off as well, causing no net change in the prices.

Try examining the same vehicle in the same location and time frame and you will see the difference in prices.

Steve

[ September 25, 2002, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

Abbott · September 25, 2002

Originally posted by Gyrene:
Hey Abbott, now that we both have the game how's about a small PBEM match to get warmed up?

Gyrene

Absolutely! I will look forward to a setup arriving from you in my inbox old friend. Any parameters you like.

ab1@sbcglobal.net

Abbott · September 25, 2002

Thank you Bullethead.

Ben Galanti · September 25, 2002

Originally posted by MrSpkr:
Perhaps rarity did not affect your vehicle's price because you were examining it in terms of two different dates? It could be thatthe dates made a significant difference in rarity, but that the base price dropped off as well, causing no net change in the prices.

Steve

I thought CM costs were based on unit effectiveness. Shouldn't the unit have the same base cost no matter the time period then (disregarding rarity)? Now, I haven't looked at the vehicle in question, but if it was identical between periods, it's base cost should be the same.

Ben

Ben Galanti · September 25, 2002

Well, I just fired up the QB force picker and in June 41, the R-35 cost 56 points, and in June 43 it cost 102 points, which is exactly what it should be based on 34 point base cost and 60% and 200% rarity respectivly (34 x 1.6 and 34 x 3.0).

Were you doing this in the scenario editor or the QB generator?

Ben

Lindan · September 25, 2002

Rarity off = same system as in CMBO

Standard rarity: rarity is based on region, date, availability

Variable rarity: (same as standard) + (random modifier for individual units)

This is in fact the short version. Bullethead put it more exactly.

Dowarisch · September 25, 2002

Thanks for all the info, I´m enlightened now. I didn´t know that the different prices don´t work in the editor. In QB mode everything makes sense.

russellmz · September 25, 2002

everything you can ever want to know about rarity(and then some):

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024702;p=2

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024702;p=3

Hi Folks,

It looks like Kwazy did a good job addressing the main points. However, I already had this nice note typed up, so I am going to post it (wasn't around to do it earlier ):

OK, looks like it is time to debunk the disinformation, worries, and muddled thinking about Rarity again

First of all, might I quote from the article as PL quoted in his first post?:

I had said...

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, the math I used is probably not very good for playability reasons, but it does illustrate what I am trying to show here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That the math I used was not really the math used in the game, but that it does illustrate the CONCEPT of what Formation Rarity is all about. It would appear that some people ignored this bit and jumped right on those numbers as if they came right out of CM. They didn't, BTW, since at the time this aspect of the game was not coded. Sheesh... talk about taking an imaginary ball and running with it So, can we forget about the numbers I used and just concentrate on the concept? Puuuuulease?

Now...

Remember that Rarity is designed to alter, in no small way, how CMBB is played vs. how CMBO was played for those people who want to play with more historically balanced battles. Otherwise, those who want to play CMBB just like CMBO can with Rarity Off. Every comment, argument, or point of view I see which leans more towards watering down Rarity so that it doesn't do what it should be doing is most likely coming from the players who (for the most part) play with Rarity off. Ladder gamers in particular, since they are the #1 users of "gamey" forces. Note that there is NOTHING wrong with playing with Rarity off, otherwise we wouldn't have included it as an option But the last people I think should be trying to influence the functionality of a feature intentionally designed, from the ground up to be realistic are those who do not want to play the game that way. It would be sorta like having corporate criminals dictating Energy policy for the government Put another way, if we want to have an optional feature that is geared towards one group of people and NOT another, we need to look at it from the perspective of the group the feature is intended to serve. Simple concept, apparently very hard to get across since this is about my 1000th time explaining this

So, let me section this off as its own point:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The concept of Rarity is to restrict the use of less common forces so that games are more representational of real WWII battles, and not the übertruppen battles which people purposefully or accidentally (through ignorance) play with in CMBO. The entire purpose, THE ENTIRE PURPOSE, is to penalize players for making unrealistic unit choices. Fixed Rarity does this in a way that creates the same viable choices for a given month, given year, given force game after game. However, Variable Rarity is designed to offer flexibility so that less common units can be purchased with reduced to no penalty at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, does this mean that all we are going to see are battles between the same infantry and tanks all the time?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, just had to vent Rarity is highly varried, but in different ways that many people in general are still not grasping. So here we go again...

Fixed Rarity gets its variety from the combo of nearly 50 possible months of combat, 6 Nationalities, different Force Types, and 4 Regions that must be chosen for each and every game. Add to this other factors, like weather, terrain, casualties, etc. and you have more variety after the units have been selected for each side. The point here is that unless you play the same two nations against each other in the same month of the same year with the same Force Type... Fixed Rarity is not even remotely limiting in terms of choices. Yes, choices within each situation will always be the same, but each battle itself has a LOT of room to be unique.

Variable Rarity gets its variety from the fact that all of what is true for Fixed is true of Rarity, BUT the price penalties change every single time you boot up the Quick Battle generator. Unlike the proposed "die roll" system, the variable price increase/decrease system allows for much more subtle choice possibilities. It is up to the player to decide if he wants to buy something a little bit rare, and possibly MUCH better, or go with more of the common stuff. This encourages games to be far more varried than the Fixed system, yet not as free as the CMBO system.

Obviously with Rarity off CMBB plays just like CMBO, so that needs no explanation.

OK, now that I have once again explained the philosophy behind the system, I'll answer a few specific questions.

Steve

Here are answers to questions. To make this easier for me, I am not noting who the quote came from (byproduct of how I am composing this post );

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading those point totals (and correlating them to the other rarity-within-division-factors posted), I freaked out when I saw the HUGE and I mean HUGE difference in prices for less common units. An engineer company at 468 points?? Wow, cross that off the list of possible units. At first I thought that this rarity would make all but the most common units all but playable in a QB, but then the last line seems to say that the math is not accurate and that the figures are unplayable. I wonder though...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, the math was pulled out of my backside because we were still months away from implementing it However, the math might not be that far off. We are going to use a standard Divisional formation, for that nation for that year, to determine what is internally rare. For example, a normal 3 regiment German Infantry Division in 1941 would have the following:

Infantry - 9 Battalions

Pioneers - 1 Battalion

Recon - 1 Battalion

That means you are NINE TIMES more likely to see an Infantry Battalion than a Recon Battalion, on average of course. Or put another way, if you role an 11 sided die (hehe... that would be an UGLY die ) you have a 2:11 chance of getting something other than Infantry, with it being 50/50 chance of Pioneer or Recon.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How wil anyone ever have anything but the commonest units? I mean, even a 10% jump in cost would cause someone to pause.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is the entire point of Fixed Rarity, so if it does this it will be 100% successful in achieving its design goal. Variable Rarity should lean a game towards "commonest units", but not as strictly.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And is that a listing for Cavalry I see? Didn't think Cav (mounted or even unmounted) was going to make it in?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Cavalry is in, but unmounted (as explained far too many times ). All nations have Cavalry, but some have hardly any (Germany and Finland in particular).

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Panzer Leader! Have some respect - they are Romanians, not Rumanians...I see BTS got THAT right too....impressive!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, we are impressive aren't we?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hah! Peng made it into an article.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We were paid a disgusting amount of money for that endorsement. But since none of us are running for public office, we don't have to report this to anybody other than the IRS

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If not I am hard pressed to see who will ever play by the system. I love diversity, odd and interesting units but against a human, and indeed often the AI, there is just no margin for satisfying that interest in the face of a run of the mill, cost effective, force.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is why we included three different types of Rarity, including NONE. The player is not forced to use any one of them, in general or game to game. We fully expect that people will play all three, but tend to lean towards one setting in particular (I personally use Variable Rarity).

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see the need for a cost multiplier at all, as another poster said, who is going to buy one infantry company of any type when it costs 3 times as much as another.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correct, which is the point of the system. However, sometimes things can be 1.2 times as much as another. We figure, why make it black and white pricing or availability? Actually, it is much harder to program a system that is that restrictive. Best make things on a full continuum, clearly show what the price increase is, and let the player choose for himself. Far more flexible than a black and white "you have it or you don't" system, even if in the end 95% of the choices made are similar.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not the numbers per se, it's the idea of charging extra for rare units and therefore ruling them out of most peoples force selections anyway.

A simple availability 'dice roll' to give them a chance of appearing on your selection list seems more logical.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated above, it is far more restrictive than even we want Rarity to be. Or, when it allows a choice, lacking any subtleness. It also doesn't allow for some units to be CHEAPER in one game vs. another. The black and white system is just that... very, very bland.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And as for those ROMANIANS, already a sad lot, will anyone EVER buy at 293 points a unit barely worth 80? I was under the impression that uncommon units might be 10-15% higher while the REALLY rare ones would be up to 100% higher, with 15-30% being the general margin. That seems workable, but this??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The example in the article is actually quite misleading. That was an earlier design before Charles and I hashed out a better way to do it. Think of each Nation as having its own Rarity "value" based on its own standard. That means standard Romanian Infantry will be priced accordingly, not according to how rare it was for that given time. However, if you chose Random Nation and Random Region, CM will determine what the Axis and Allied forces should be depending on the number of each unit present for a given date and Region. This means that if Romanians constituted 30% of the Axis Souther Region's force on a given date, you get a 30% chance of landing the Romanians. Then the system figures out what chance of being Infantry, Mechanized, Mountain, Cavalry, or Security within the Romanian Army based on how many units of each were in the field during that time. The numebrs we use are rough, but they are definitely paint a good picture of what the situation was like for a given time period in a given Region. No Italians fighting in the Tundra for example

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In QBs does the computer pick forces by cost values? If it does, then rarity as described, could have a huge impact on final selections.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, the computer picks forces based on "bang for the buck". It is given a bit of license to "splurge" a tiny bit, but basically it will buy the middle of the road and cheaper stuff for you.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't quite see the correlation between a "rare" unit and "expensiveness".

A unit is rare or common, that is acceoted, but why introduce price anomaly.

There might be better ways of penalising rare unit purchases using the existing points system that does not involve making rare units more expensive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Points are an abstract concept from the start, so it is not correct to treat them as a sacred cow. I side gets x number of points to spend on units which are priced according to their "inherent worth". Making them more or less expensive does not increase or decrease their inherent value, but instead limits the player's ability to manipulate pricing to their advantage through unrestricted purchases. There is an old saying... if you want someone to feel real pain, hit them in the wallet not in their stomach. The pain of one outlasts the pain of the other. (OK, I made that up, but damned if it doesn't sound profound ).

Now on to Page 2's questions...

Steve

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody, that's why it is called a rarity system, because rare units will not show. Do you suggest here to have simply a rarity level selection like we have an experience level selection in CMBO QBs. But i think people complain now that they would like to mix experience levels in QBs. So BTS is just trying to avoid this limitation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly. The system we have is far more flexible and variable than the black and white system, yet it still adequately reflects reality. At least to the extent we wish to control it (one should only be able to buy in platoons, for example, but that is a discussion for another day )

BTW, Force Experience is now varied. When you select a level you will get a small random number "upgraded" and a small number "downgraded". That means a force which could be 10% Regular, 10% Conscript, and 80% Green (I just made up the numbers to illustrate the concept). Don't worry, there is price equity in the system so nobody is going to get screwed vs. the other player's results!

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The system Rex was talking about would not be any more susceptible to this than the one BTS is using. Fortunately, BTS has promised to make this impossible, probably by not allowing either player to see the purchase screen before the first file is sent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We never promise until something is already coded and working correctly This is something we really WANT to have in there, but not sure if we are going to get it done in time. However, with Variable Rarity (the only option that really matters here) we don't think people will be booting and rebooting to see what they got. The reason is that the system is so varied that it is highly unlikely that the one or two things they are hoping will come down in price will to an extent that matters AND that other units he wants won't go up in price. OK, so you get that Tiger at only +30%, but those Halftracks you want are now +10%. So you redo the setup. Now the Tiger is +80 and the HTs are +5%. Redo. Tiger is now +40% and the HTs are -5%. See what I mean? It isn't like the Tiger is going to be +250% one time and then -5% another. The system is purposefully set up to NOT have mood swings like this. The Fixed Rarity system is used as a benchmark for change, with the range of possible changes being fixed to these hardcoded numbers. Or more basically, the people most likely to do something underhanded like this probably want a Jagdtiger. Well, hate to break it to that player... that thing ain't NEVER going to be cheap

I also think that weenies like this are more likely to not want Rarity at all. No, Rarity Off folks are not all weenies, but I do think that weenies are disproportionally apt to play with Rarity Off. It was, after all, primarily because of them that Rarity became a major design goal in the first place!

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt that you will have much fun with rarity settings in a ladder game. Historical players will like it. It is a matter of taste, what kind of battle you play and what you agree upon with your opponent. Absolutely nothing to worry about!

OPTIONAL is the keyword! Nobody forces you to use rarity!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oooo! This one is a smart 'un! Folks should listen to him. Well, at least this one time!

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there a way to have a qb with a company of infantry and a platoon of PzIVs (is that gamey??) without spending so many points on the panzers that you could (AND SHOULD) get an additional 5 or so copmanies of infantry? Is that equivalent to your "wanting to play with IS-3's?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't forget that Force Type is important. If you get "stuck" with Infantry, then you aren't going to get squat for vehicles of any sort. Rare or otherwise. If you play with Combined Arms or Armored you will get a whole different balance.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there a way to have a qb with a company of infantry and a platoon of PzIVs (is that gamey??) without spending so many points on the panzers that you could (AND SHOULD) get an additional 5 or so copmanies of infantry?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To use a real game example...

1200 point Attack battle in July, 1941 with Fixed Rarity for two different game setups:

1. Infantry Division with Combined Arms - 1 Battalion of Infantry with support from a platoon of Pz38(T) Ausf E + 150 points left over to spend on Infantry, Support, Vehicles, or Artillery (Armor is maxed out).

2. Mechanized Division with Combined Arms - 1 Battalion of Infantry (Mot) with support from a platoon of PzIV D + 110 points left over to spend on Infantry, Support, Vehicles, Armor, or Artillery.

And this is with FIXED Rarity folks There were, BTW, plenty of armor choices to make all within the same pricerange. I could ahve bought, for example, PzIVEs and been left with 80 points.

Note that the force difference is because Infantry Division Combined Arms battles use one set of max spending per unit type than Mechanized. That means a Mechanized Division can opt to purchase more/better armor than an Infantry Division. Also note that in this case the Infantry Battalion for an Infantry Division was more expensive because it is bigger, yet it still was able to max out the Armor catagory with points left over.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With rarity ON, can I still play a competitive QB with a company of infantry and a platoon of PZIVs without spending such an outrageous amount of points that it becomes wasteful.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, just don't buy the IS-3s and you should be all set

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm looking forward to it, as it will force people to choose things they don't normally choose (and sometimes things they don't really want).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Me too! Like any sane person would ever pick a 1941 Romanian Infantry formation to fight a Soviet Mechanized one Hehe... OK, I would, but I doubt many others would!

In our VERY strong opinion, these options will seperate the REAL tactical gurus from the GAMEY ones. In other words, the people who claimed to be great tactians should do well even with some of these, er, less optimal force mixes. The ones that have relied on tweaking out the game system and selecting only a narrow range of options which they have mastered will be beaten worse than than a tennis ball at Wimbelton Again, nothing wrong with playing "gamey", just don't try and compare apples to oranges.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-relative to what are those values? only to infantry or each type (tank, amored car/haltrack, other vehicles, guns, artillery, etc) has it scale and is relative to that type. if all the equipment in the game is relative to infantry the tanks will get crazy prices, but if a tank is relative to the tank class it will be fair. and different countries off course, is not the same the number of tanks that there were on the red army than in the heer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The system is not that sophisticated. The equipment (guns, tanks, halftracks, etc.) are priced according to how rare they were relative to their own catagories (MGs, AT Guns, Vehicles, Tank type units, etc.). We can not price a HT differently if the person should select a Recon Battalion vs. selecting an Infantry one. Fact is both choices are available at the same time, so this would be impossible. We also don't price them differently for each Division Type or Force Type, but instead adjust the max points allowed for things like Vehicles and Armor. Get an Infantry only force and both of these are zero.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-there will be different scales for different battle types? i mean the prices shouldn´t be the same for a tank battle than for a combined arms battle or for a inf battle.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prices are the same, max points allowed to be spent vary.

Steve

I can not seem to find the explanation of the rarity values in the manual.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites