Purchase points are way off ---- again

[Priest]

Ugh here we go again.

I think this should be pointed out. Point based arguements normally go like this...

"Hey my ZERG rush is economical due to their low cost in vespian gas"

"Yes but my PROTOSS Carriers are overpriced because of that, the ZERGLINGS are too damn cheap"

"NO WAY MAN! I OWNZOR YOU!"

Or something to that effect.

In CM games tactics rule the battlefield.

"My STUG IIIF's are really great weapon systems especially in Hull Down"

"True but using some fairly basic lightweight artillery I can smoke them and either flank or force your hand and move them from your position"

"Yes that is true but there are still good for an ambush position and have enough armour to survive to move on to another."

"That is true, hopefully I can track them and pick them out and then true to circumvent them"

"That is why we play the game!"

See the difference? STUGS, KTs, Tigers, Panthers, KVs, etc. were all killed in the war by multiple weapon systems. Some folks knock the point system but fail to realize it matters little as the actual simulation engine is good enough to allow most match up to have at least some sort of playability. The greater majority actually being really awesome experiences.

So for those of you who claim that certain vehicles have "a certain something" well great. Guess what I think the Tiger has a certain something and used them all the time. Against players who let me sit back and snipe them from a nice position they ruled the battlefield. Others who actually became proactive and sought to foil my Tiger raised their chances of being successful in the mission.

The answer is not points, it is tactics. Do not complain that you just cannot charge across the battlefield because that is not the point of CM games. Using tactics will nullify any "psuedo" points advantage you think exists.

[ October 21, 2002, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Priest ]

[Battlefront.com]

Priest is very correct, as several of the last posters have been as well.

Tactics, battlefield conditions, and luck determine a battle more than the units found on either side. Take a couple of StuGs with poor infantry support, face it against a horde of T-70s with great infantry support and who do you think will win? On a clear day on an open map? On a foggy night in close in terrain? Against a player that doesn't know what he is doing vs. a veteran of the various ladders?

If you said "StuG" for any of the above, without qualifications, then you are playing a different game than the one we made The answer about which is better in what situation is not easy to define.

OK, I can already hear the counter argument... "you need to monitor (somehow) the games people play and see which generally wins, then price accordingly". All sounds fine, eh? Nope! Define what our judgement criteria should be? Should we only count what the StuG does to others or what is generally done to the StuG? What months should we pay attention to? How are we going to compare the StuG's performance against the hundreds of possible enemy vehicles, ATGs, artillery, and infantry options? Should we weigh what it does to others more highly than what is done to it? How do we account for the risk of the vehicle never really coming into combat because of bogging down or having its LOS hindered for whatever reason?

Folks, what some people are asking for is IMPOSSIBLE. Sure, if CM only had StuGs, T-34s and a couple other vehicles we could do this. But check out how much STUFF is in there!! If ladder players always want to play the same month with the same vehicles, what does that have to do with anything? We can't utilize a solution that is special cased and can't be directly applied to the millions of other possibilities.

There can be no "human" based point system. End of story. To think that there could possibly be one is ignoring the facts. That leaves us with our fair, unbiased, and scientific modeling that accounts for every single unit in the game no matter which of the millions of possible choices pops up.

See too many StuGs in your games? Demand to play different conditions or learn better tactics and/or unit choices. The "fix" as well as the "problem" lie in the player's hands already.

Steve

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Walpurgis Night:

This is a little of the topic of purchase points, but why does virtually anyone that writes about the Tiger in CMBO point out that it is useless? I bought these guys all the time in QBs and they kicked arse . . . both on defense and offense. Yes, they are slow . . . but tough . . . ALL around, which made up for their lazy speed. What was I missing? The only thing that ever gave me trouble was a late Churchill.

And Mr. Void . .. you really need a Xanex.

I found the Tiger I to be an extraordinary asset in CMBO. It's only drawback being the slow turret, which of course seemed fitting.

[Tarquelne]

That leaves us with our fair, unbiased, and scientific modeling that accounts for every single unit in the game no matter which of the millions of possible choices pops up.

Steve's said it's "IMPOSSIBLE" to create and apply a system that factors in all the different combinations of factors that make up a unit's combat value.

That's just not true. Give me a few hundred million dollars and 5 years and I _gaurantee_ I can make a system that, if not perfect, is better than CMBB's current system. Even if it doesn't make a difference in 90% of the QBs.

Go ahead, try me. I'm willing to put your money where my mouth is.

fair, unbiased, and scientific modeling

The point system? Fair - I see that. Unbiased - for players and nationalities, sure. Though I've always been curious about exactly how the point values are arrived at.

"Scientific modeling" I don't understand, though. How's it apply to the point system?

[ October 21, 2002, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

A follow up to something Redwolf said in the other StuG thread...

The big improvement in pricing between CMBO and CMBB is not, as Redwolf stated, linked to game engine improvements (i.e. MGs being more powerful). I am sure that has an impact, but the big impact is Rarity. In CMBO we could not account for a vehicle's Rarity except to fudge its base price. And that meant a lot of "cheap" but VERY rare units (Pumas come to mind right away) were bought over and over and over again by German players. With Rarity this is a lot less likely to happen.

Steve

I think that is oversimplifying. Even without rarity the CMBB pricing works a lot better than the CMBO one.

What were the "bargins" in CMBO? They were all created by engine problems.

SMG companies? Too hard to hold, they could overrun everything. They are fine now, for the same price, without rarity.

M8 HMC? Well you need it to blow up infantry (lacking Mgs) in an extremly tank-unfriendly environment (you need speed to prevent overrun from infantry and you need numbers). Short-75mm vehicles now have their correct place, they are not so badly needed because the infantry is held up by MGs, and the same price feels right now (without rarity).

Small guns? Well if 90% of pentrations will kill the victim they become pretty valuable. Remember what people said before CMBB's release how powerful AT rifles will become? If they knew theyse were to be 13 points everybody would have cried bloddy murder. Did they become a problem? Not in my games anyway. No rarity need.

Hetzer? Well if the MGs are useless (and turrets miss control) why bother upgrading to a Panzer?

[Priest]

Well just to be a true CM fanboy!

Technically anything using the basic logical methodology of "science" in general can be said to have a scientific model.

Remember in grade school (and high school) you learned that science is about creating a controlled environment to test a hypothesis which if proven under already accepted conditions would thus result in a theory. A theory thus proven over and over again by multiple sources would in fact prove the theory as an accepted truth but as a rule there is no absolute truth in science and all theories are at any time capable of being proven false by another if they follow the methods stated above to produce a different result due to there hypothesis which starts a whole new cycle.

Whew that was long winded, what is scary is that paragraph basically teaches the core of what my 4 years of high school science taught. As long as BFC provided a controlled environment or formula based on facts to produce the scores, validated the scores calculated being somewhat with pre-defined parameters and the same being applied to each vehicle without change then they have a scientific model to produce the points per vehicle statistics.

Well now that I have solidified my position as UBER FANBOY I will retire back to this thing called "work". I am not sure what it is but my girlfriend keeps demanding that I come and stay here for 8 hours a day! You know come to think of it, I really have not seen here since the CMBB thing came in the mail, what was here name????

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Priest:

I am not sure what it is but my girlfriend keeps demanding that I come and stay here for 8 hours a day! You know come to think of it, I really have not seen here [sic] since the CMBB thing came in the mail, what was here [sic] name????

I don't know either, but if you can't even spell 'her' correctly, you would probably not have been able to address the birthday card you were supposed to send her in any case.

Michael

[Priest]

Oops I was doing a CMBB PBEM turn at the time I was writing the end of that (See what I mean, at work even!).

[akdavis]

I'm sure this doesn't balance things in all cases, but maybe with the 1942 Stug issue: isn't the Soviet player allowed to spend more points on armor? So while the T-34 and Stug come at similar prices, the Soviet player might be able to get 2 T-34s for every German Stug. I think 2 T-34s used well can probably deal with a Stug used not-so-well. I think that answers your specific complaint.

[Talenn]

Well, as the one who started the original thread, let me throw a few more pennies into the pot:

Ok, IMO, a static formula is just as flawed as a 'play derived' system if used in a vaccuum (which it appears that it is...ie, no 'game experience' influencing the cost). Here's some reasoning/examples:

Say, for instance, a StuG model was deployed in early 43 that had 500mm of frontal armor (somehow...who know..just an extreme example). What would your cost system say? If I read you right, it would be a VERY expensive vehicle because the costs are static, based on vehicle stats etc, and 500mm of armor would be grotesque. BUT, said vehicle would be almost NO better than the standard StuG out there in that time frame because both are still frontally immune to 95% of the opposing weapons while retaining all of the disadvantages of a turretless, MG-less vehicle with weak side armor.

Do you see what I am getting at? If another version of the StuG had 70mm of armor, it would be marginally cheaper than the StuGIIIF/8 or G, and would be infinately less survivable because it COULD be frontally killed by the primary opponents.

The context of a vehicle's use cant be determined for pricing (ie, scenario type, terrain, weather, etc). That much, I'll accept. But I STILL think that its very possible to adjust the formula to get a closer approximation of a particular vehicle/unit's typical combat potential. Since this is not something that CAN be scientifically derived, there has to be some human 'common sense' intervention or the whole system of having point values for QBs kind of breaks down IMO.

There are always going to be 'favored' units, that much is true. But it IS more possible than people seem to believe to go in and apply some modifiers based on common battlefield matchups. As I said in my earlier post, I think its far better to err a little on the high side for some vehicles than the low side.

As an example, a StuG would cost a bit more upon 'release'. That would mean that in late 44, it would more or less disappear from QBs unless other vehicles were suffering a pretty stiff rarity penalty. But I'd prefer that to the over use of StuGs in battles between Fall of 42 and say, Winter of 43/Early 44 where it begins to become outclasses or at least matched. It would at least encourage a little bit more variety in many time periods in QB play.

I'm smart enough to realize that at this point, any of these discussions is really just the equivalent of banging your head against the wall. But, at least I'm not the only one seeing StuGs being constantly deployed in QBs and coming out ahead of Soviet armor while costing less.

One thing that many of you are forgetting in your 'flank them' examples and whatnot, is that its the THREAT of the StuG that does most of the work. You cant KNOW that there are no StuGs around, so your armor is VERY limited in how it can support the infantry (where everyone says--correctly--that its better than the StuG). BUT, if you commit it, you can lose it without being able to hit back due to frontal invulnerability. If you dont commit, you might as well have spent to the points elsewhere. The advantage is ALWAYS on the German side here because they CAN commit the StuGs forwards (as long as they arent totally sloppy) while the Sov armor is hamstrung. That is a HUGE advantage that is only present in the artificial confines of a derived 'fair' battle. But THAT is exactly where the point values should come in and make a difference.

akdavis:

If the German player selects 'armor' formation, he can (I believe) spend 100% on armor---just like the Russians. That still allows them a sufficient infantry screen and nulifies the supposed Soviet advantage in armor points.

Priest:

Not every discussion involving point values necessarily involves Starcraft twitch crowd kiddies. It IS possible to debate and change points in a Wargame without devolving to 'my Zergling will oWnZor your Marines'. That is something this crowd falls back on an awful lot...if you want to change the system, you must be trying to make it like 'x' L337-DoOd game. Not everyone who wants to 'balance' things is a kiddie.

Hope this helps clarify a few things and furthers the discussion (even as I beat my head against the wall....*whack*...*thump*....owww...)

Talenn

[Priest]

Talenn

I did not mean to say that all the folks who are concerned with points are "Kiddies".

It was to point out that in games such as StarCraft that amount need to produce a unit means alot to the game, heck people design "strategies" all the time based soley on the comparative prices of units in that game.

In CM games the point system is more than good enough to provide battles that are entertaining. Tactics in CM are a lot more important than the relative cost of Stugs versus T-34's. Your example insinuates the "threat" of Stugs right. Well be my guest use STUGS all you want. Against me you will have to spend so much to secure them from the flanks that you could have bought maybe one or two more Panzer IVs. Also do not plan on me running my armour contingent up front initially whether you have STUGS or not. That is what my recce forces are for. Either you will stay hidden waiting for my armour giving me free ground or you will open up on my recce forces and thus give away your position without endangering my armour. Up to you.

And why is it players do not realize that it is you who get to do things like refuse to play a game against straight German armour if you do not like it. Everyone gets to see the settings, there really is no hiding it anyway. Hmm he has 10 STUGS but only one company of infantry, I bet he chose armour or unrestricted.

Not sure what the issue is. STUGS are great but far from ubeatable. The point system works fine (IMO) and again you are in control, have fun.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Priest:

recce

You're not allowed to say that, you American!

[DrAlimantado]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

"Scientific modeling" I don't understand, though. How's it apply to the point system?

Heh, I am not surprised that this comment came from you. My guess is that both you and I are having our buttons pushed at the moment.

M

[akdavis]

Stop whining and give it to that StuG UP THE ASS!!!

[Treeburst155]

If I were doing ladder games I would avoid the StuG problem by insisting on a 1944 battle. StuGs will become a common talking point in QB negotiations, along with many other units, I'm sure.

As for the Tiger/Sherman matchup in CMBO that was mentioned above, I'll take the Shermans anytime IN TYPICAL CMBO TERRAIN. Them Tigers is REAL dogs! Why just the other day I had one knocked out at 600+ meters by a vanilla Sherman (M4). It was a frontal shot too!

Treeburst155 out.

Treeburst155 out.

[BlackVoid]

People talk about using good tactics against a not-so well used Stug.

Why do you assume that the Axis player does not know how to play it?

If he keeps it far, with only the front exposed, covered by guns and infantry, it is just near impossible to kill it.

Well, anyway tonight I will try something different. I will buy tons of cheap 45mm soviet tanks and rush it.

Just like the good ol', ultra-realistic Hellcat rush.

Regarding the Stug being useless in some situations (Eg: heavy forest, town), it is true. But everyone knows this and people will not buy them in these situations. Yes, I could play random map/weather, but then I could just flip a coin instead of playing the game.

In QBs most people look for a map and settings where both sides have a chance. So rarely will see attacks on large open steppes, which may have been the case in real life a lot. In those situations though, those gamey soviets often used a force 5-10 times greater than the enemy.

I was bringing up CMBO so many times, because I quite new to CMBB and do not want to write something stupid, but the point problem has carried over.

And a Tiger in CMBO can be killed by any 76mm gun, not just the Jumbo. Just test 2 regular 76mm Sherman against the Tiger, if the Tiger is facing just 45 degrees away from them.

I still hold to my opinion, that points cost should be changed according to player input. It was badly needed for CMBO and badly needed here.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

Regarding the Stug being useless in some situations (Eg: heavy forest, town), it is true. But everyone knows this and people will not buy them in these situations.

The point that you seem to be missing is that the point values are based on raw capability. Vehicle A has this armor, this gun, moves this well, has this many machineguns, blah, blah, blah.

There is no realistic way to do situation values, which is what you are asking for. If I'm playing on an open map in clear daylight, I want StuGs to be really expensive in 1942. That's like saying if it is night and foggy, tanks should almost be free because they are next to useless.

[Jarmo]

It's way too early to start telling what "everybody" uses and buys.

In CMBO it took a good while before even the harcore ladder group had "evolved" into using stuff like the massed M8Howitzers.

If "everybody" is using Stugs, you dont need T-34's to kill them. A light tank does the flank kill almost as well, at half the price. The 56mm armed lease vehicles kill stugs, captured stugs do it even better.

The "I've played 5 quickbattles already and there's clearly a fault in the pricing system" -argument just doesnt fly. No matter how long someone compares the prices, the way "everybody plays" and the effectiveness of units is still undetermined at this point.

Easy counter for stugs? Large rural map with wet or muddy ground.

[Mark Gallear]

I know I promised not to post again for a long time but Blackvoid has hit the moving target in one shot. I am really glad this thread is going on!!!!!

I sort of understand where the Battlefront administrator type guy is coming from two! I like the idea of rarity but not sure you have gone far enough along the road with this one or really made unusual vehicles rare. (Not even sure I understand the concept either – got the Euro manual.) The SU-76 would have been the most common vehicle on the Russian front in the mid to late years – if you want to differentiate the T-34 into late and early models, yet it is not rated common and I have yet to use one or encounter one. There are still gamey choices – I tend to buy the Russian ACs at 22 points for scouting – they would have been rare as hell – a handful per Armoured Division.

I liked the fact in CMBO you could not buy King Tigers on the same list as Volkssturm. What happened here? I think the lists should reflect the equipment in the type of division you are in – Armoured, Motor Rifle, Infantry, etc.

In CMBO I thought that the problems with Stugs, Hetzers etc were modelled well. In CM2 like everbody else I think they are super weapons. I don’t believe the gun on them is that good. Yes I know about the picture with the Stug with all the kill markings. Ok Michael Wittmann learned how to be a Panzer Ace in one. The Stugs were used in pairs to support infantry. On the Russian side their infantry was supported by tankettes – they are in the list with the trucks – the paper thin things with MG armament and open topped. You could kill one of these things in a Stug by dropping a HE round near it. Later when the Red Army used the SU-76 for general infantry support – the Stug still wins – the SU-76 is opened topped and so can still be killed by a HE round – they are issued only with a handful of AT rounds so will have run out by the time they have ranged in. One historian who has studied Wittmans career believes that the majority of his kills are these Tankette things not T-34s or KVs – he pointedly says they would not have been considered tanks on the Western Front. Some sources add in the abandoned Bren carriers into his kills at Villers Bocage. (In fact they tend double the number of Bren carriers that were there.) His career would have been cut short if a division of these things had come straight at him.

Yep, never seen a Tiger II, Panther in an email points game in CMBO – one opponent thought about buying a Jagpanther – I advised him not to bother. (I think it was good and honest advice).

Battlefront – would it help if I said pretty please?

(By the way the 81mm mortars seem a bit expensive on the Italian list – was this a typo.)

[TSword]

Blackvoid,

A StuG will die easely even by a louzy 45 mm AT Gun in no time and of course by T-34/76 also if only hit in the flank.

Had a StuG yesterday exploding by a single shot from a 45 mm AT at around 40-45° angle in the side from 200 m (Scenario with normal Fog).

But if you are stupid enough to take them Head-on, then pay for it.....

There was a standing order at a time or another 1942/43 for russian tanks to avoid firefights with StuGs.

Greets

Daniel

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

1942 T34 and 1942 StugIIIF

The latter is a bit cheaper. Yet, it cannot be killed by the T34. A properly used Stug will always win. Even if you take a more expensive KV, you still have no chance against the Stug. The Stug is uber and priced at a mere 100 point is downright ridiculous.

A properly used anything will always win (as several people have already stated).

You want a T34 that will kick some StuG armored butt? Buy a T34/57. Yes, the 57mm gun is more powerful than the 76mm. Look it up, I'll wait. And it's available starting in 11/41.

In a 1000 pt (fairly typical) QB, May 1942, I bought a platoon of T34/43's, 1x T34/57, a motorized infantry coy, an 82mm FOO, and a few support elements (all Regulars --- you could get more if you go Green). That should be more than enough to get the job done.

[ October 22, 2002, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: von Lucke ]

[Ligur]

I can't figure out what makes StuG all powerful.

Me am dumb?

Like XXXXX-amount of people have said the keys to avoiding 10 Stugs-in-cover vs 20 attacking T34s are all in our hands.

Using the rarity and playing various years and months with a bit of randomness in terrain and weather will help a lot.

[edit]I can't remember who said it, but the dread of StuGs alone is enough to tie a player down? Bollocks, go for it! You might take a bad whipping but if the StuGs are there you can flank them. Send in cheap infantry first, find out where they are, or roll armored cars around. Play like you had a mission, not like the most important thing is not losing a tank, Stalin doesn't mind and neither does the political officer.[/edit]

[ October 22, 2002, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: Ligur ]

[WWB]

Played an interesting QB last night, and it illustrated a way to help balance the StuG, if you are so worried about it. Play an armored ME and set the map to huge. Then the german player can rarely set his stug up in unaliable position. A flank can easily be turned, and a StuG with a turned flank is a dead stug.

That and the whole lack of MG/low ammo loadout makes them less of a deal than they actually are.

WWB

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by DrAlimantado:

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

"Scientific modeling" I don't understand, though. How's it apply to the point system?

Heh, I am not surprised that this comment came from you. My guess is that both you and I are having our buttons pushed at the moment.

M</font>

[Redwolf]

I think people overlook the basic "problem", which is based in reality.

For a given timeframe, the Germans were building the biggest bear in the valley. The game reflects that. Period.

Such a timeframe is not suitable for competitive human-chosen quickbattles. There is nothing in the pricing scheme you can do about it short of doing a different pricing for each month (which would consume our fellow developers for months).

So you either have to avoid such a month or you need to use something like Fionn rules. I am working on a set, which will have recommendations for each month in CMBB.

Most competitive laddergames in CMBO used Fionn rules, too, and that even though infantry was stronger anyway and could just overrun a king tiger.

[ October 22, 2002, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]