Purchase points are way off ---- again

[Talenn]

Steve:

I've said before that text is a poor medium for communication sometimes. It fails to convey tone and inflection which are sometimes critical in understanding someone's point. I think that is the situation here and people are all debating around the same tree.

I've always understood (since your first postings on this) your position on this and I accept it. I dont necessarily agree with it in full, but I do see the logic behind the decision. I was just sort of set off again by the way this discussion had turned. A lot of that, I think, can be attributed to the tone of the original poster. He came in loaded for bear and the response was someone more curt and blunt than the previous thread.

FWIW, I'd still like to see some effort made to curtail 'gameyness' in force selection whether by points (apparently not), availability, or some other factor. Point cost was just an obvious, accessible target. Reigning in 'overused' vehicles could be done in a number of ways. Its my hope that discussions like this serve a purpose to show that it IS a semi-important issue to have QBs where variety occurs, and not pervasive use of some equipment (whether it be StuGs, Hetzers, Sturmtigers, KVs/T34s in 41, or whatever).

Gaylord Focker:

Ok, buddy...you are asking for it!! You want flames? Huh? I can do that with or without a StuG involved!!!!

In all seriousness, you may have seen it as 'table pounding', but if you look, there are some additional points brought up (and addressed). I'd hardly call that the pouting demand for a change that you seem to be seeing. There is indeed 'logic' behind (at least some of)the complaints. I'm not asking you to agree, but only to see that there IS something more than 'whining' going on.

I'm more interested in the rationale behind the decisions than the decisions themselves at this point. I think I've found them, but I WOULDNT have if I had sat there like a 'good little boy' and said 'Yes, BFC, this is the best ever...it cant be better...dont change a thing'.

If everyone had that idea, I dont think we'd have seen half of the improvements we saw from CMBO to CMBB. Discussing 'balance' is a good thing. Debating points that multiple people (independently) observe is a good thing. In the end, change is good thing (I think everyone who has played both CMBO and CMBB would agree). But that change comes at the price of discussion and occasionally arguments. And its hard to have those discussions (and keep your temper) when someone from the peanut gallery always has to come in and insert 'quit whining'. Just my $.02 on it

Talenn

[Gaylord Focker]

Has Fionn or anyone made up rules yet to balance out ladder games?

If not i'm sure someone will and that should solve the balance issue for ladder play without having to change anything core to the game itself.

To me it sounds more like a player issue more then a game issue is all. But thats just my point of view.

[Ligur]

Where has Fionn gone anyway? I was interested about how his fast rushing infantry tactics worked in CM:BB... You know, the ones where he used running troops to envelope the enemy and smite them with vengeance.

[Talenn]

I actually dont play any ladder games. I just play casual pickup TCP/IP games. I never felt the need to use any special 'rules' in CMBO, we just avoided the 'rare' but cheesey vehicles in the game.

Thats the problem we are having. StuGs are weed common for most of the time so buying them shouldnt be 'gamey'. But they seem so out of whack compared to their costs in many situations. Maybe its just perception (as other have suggested), but whats perceived is real.

So, we haven't come up with any 'rules' that make any sense that prohibit StuGs. There just doesnt seem to be any logical basis other than how effective they are per cost. If we 'banned' them in QBs, what could you have left? Would T34s and KVs then be banned? The list could be endless and we end up with nothing but go-carts.

Looking forward to someone else's though.

Talenn

[Tarquelne]

FWIW, I'd still like to see some effort made to curtail 'gameyness' in force selection whether by points (apparently not), availability, or some other factor. Point cost was just an obvious, accessible target.

Where I think players who are competative AND enjoy some historical accuracy have a problem with Rarity is that, even with Variable Rarity, a player is often either getting units at fewer points than they're worth, or more. (A ladder player's nightmare would be to buy a significant number of units with an added Rarity cost while his opponent buys units with a discount.) Over multiple games everything should even out... but I think it understandable that for some players that won't be much of a comfort.

Sure, you can turn off Rarity - but (unless you cobble together some other rules) "Hello, gamyness!" Or you can use computer force selection... which does seem better in CMBB than in CMBO, but you still get some pretty bizzare, unbalanced forces. And choosing forces yourself is often fun.

I'm hoping that the next CM game will have something in between Rarity (Variable or Fixed) and computer selection: Have the computer "filter" the available forces by Rarity, so some units aren't avaialbe and (hopefully) some units are available only in limited numbers. The player could put together his own force, and still be limited by Rarity, AND still pay for the full combat effectiveness of each unit. (And there's the fun of seeing what the computer makes available.)

[QUTOE]

Then you must aslo accept that much of the case being made for change here is done without addressing any of the main counter arguments.[/QUTOE]

Well, now that we've had a peek into the Game Developer Glossary it's much easier understand some of those arguments. Unless we all share terms, it's IMPOSSIBLE to understand anything others say.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Straif:

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

SNIP

Insofar they depend on "fair" games. They need games where both sides have a reasonable equal chance of winning.

SNIP

.

May be you can just play "mirror" games. It means in the same conditions you play Soviets and in another game - Germans. Then use the sum of points from both of the games as a "real" measure of your skills.

It should equalize any problems realted to pricing, weather and attacking/defending sides.

Straif</font>

[Andrew H.]

I suggested this in the other thread, but I'll bring it up here, too - why not just use the handicap function to work as a bidding mechanism? That is, one player agrees to play the StuGless attacker in '42 for +50% troops. The other player will do it for +40%. The first player will do it for +30%...and if the second player won't go lower, the first player plays the StuGless attacker.

Won't that fix all the problems?

[Tarquelne]

a bidding mechanism?

We (my LAN group) use bidding fairly often in games. It's _great_. Generally we focus on force types and battle conditions - but "Please, no more g*ddamn StuGs!" could work too.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Berli wrote something so profoundly simple and straight to the heart of the "blinders" problem exhibited here in this (and the other) thread that it deserves to be repeated:

[snip]

P.S. Berli, try not to let it go to your head that I said in public that you actually had a point worthy of repeating

Oh, no worries Steve... my ego can't get any bigger

[Battlefront.com]

Talenn,

FWIW, I'd still like to see some effort made to curtail 'gameyness' in force selection whether by points (apparently not), availability, or some other factor.

Hehe... you have no idea how much effort went in to defeating gamey players The problem is that even with everything we did (Rarity, Random options, Division force selection, etc) there is ALWAYS a way for someone to exploit the system. Especially if the other player isn't aware of the telltale signs. So unfortunately there is only so much we will be able to do without removing player unit choices (which is absolutely fun to do, even if it is the #1 reason for Cherry Picking).

Side note -> yes, AI picked forces are more realistic in CMBB than CMBO. This is because the picking code uses Rarity as a guide for what it should purchase. Back in CMBO it was prone to "gamey" picks because like an uneducated player (i.e. without a notion of realistic force mixes) it had too few parameters to guide its purchases. End of side note

Rarity was something we didn't foresee needing when we designed CMBO. Oh sure, we knew people would buy too many of this or that, but we thought players had more self control than to always use the same things. We also thought players could self regulate themselves through their own rules. While both were true to some extent, enough people didn't care about either (or were didn't even know they were being gamey) that we realized something had to be done. And thus Rarity was born

I will let you guys in on something we are planning on doing though And that is "formation purchasing"...

Think of this as a progression:

CMBO - introduced scientific, methodical evaluations of each unit's inherent value. This concept, as I have defended here, has not been seriously challenged. A case here or there has been made for tweaks to the system, but no good case has been made to get rid of it.

CMBB - retained the above and added additional elements, specifically Rarity (Unit, Formation, National, and Regional), Division types, and Random options for Quick Battles.

Engine Rewrite - we plan on retaining all of the above pretty much "as is". The difference is that we are planning on adding full divisional TO&E into the game system. That means the player can specify he wants to play the following (using CMBB timeframe for example):

Infantry Division

On the Attack

In November 1941

In South Region

The system would then figure out what nationality should be chosen, then the type of "infantry" division, and if applicable which variant specific to that timeframe and Region. This is pretty much how CMBB works, so here is the twist...

The system would then determine what the best/realistic mix of forces should be for the terrain, type of battle, weather conditions, etc. within the specifically chosen division type (ex: 1 x battalion of "infantry" supported by some light artillery and a small amount of armor). CMBB almost does this but doesn't take as many scenario specific factors into account as we would like. But here is the BIG twist...

The system would chose generic units like:

1 x Infantry Battalion

2 x Artillery support element

1 x AT Platoon

Then, depending on Rarity, the system would fill in the blanks and yield specific units that would realistically be found together.

Sound very similar to how CMBB does things? Well, from the player's perspective... yes. But now think of this in a player choice situation...

You are assigned a specific goal and are allowed to choose your forces. You decide you want to take an "infantry" battle. CM then selects which kind of infantry division you draw your forces from. This then displays the corret TO&E a commander would have to draw from. No tanks organic to that type of division? Tough... you can't select any tanks! If all the division has are crappy towed AT guns of various types in a Divisional AT Battalion, you might be able to choose say two "Anti-Tank Companies". But if the division only has a divisional AT Company and NOT a Battalion... tough... you can only select ONE AT Company. And in any case, the system decides what AT Guns you would realistically have to play around with. Same for any other unit, such as artillery. Division not have access to anything larger than 150mm Howitzers? Well baby, that is the best you are going to get!

There are all sorts of things we plan on doing with this, but I think you get the basic jist. If you don't, here it is in a nutshell...

The player can opt to purchase FORMATIONS only. This means you can sculpt the overall kind of taskforce you will command, but NOT the specific componants. If you select a German Medium Tank Company in 1941 you might get Pz 38(T)s or some type of Pz III or a mix. You won't know until the game starts.

OK, I can already hear the self unit pickers complaining that this does nothing for them because they won't want to play with this option. Well, we aim to surprise even the skeptics

The player could waive this more realistic approach and instead Cherry Pick units by hand. However, they would ONLY be based on what that Division type had available. That means you could take the Panzer Divisions' only PzIV Company instead of a mixed bag unit. However, if the Division only has *one* of these companies you can not purchase two! If the Division does not have SMG troops you won't be allowed to buy them. Of course points will still be used to keep things balanced, so perhaps instead of being able to purchase the whole of the Heavy Panzer Company you can only purchase 2 platoons worth *or* a whole Medium Panzer Company.

OK, I think that gives you guys enough food for thought

Steve

[JonS]

Steve, that sounds good. Jolly good in fact. Bloody jolly good even.

You know its going to happen though ... so here it is:

What about ...

What about independant battalions and corps level assets?

Regards

JonS

[Priest]

And the circle starts anew!

[Gaylord Focker]

Well so far it sounds like a damn good idea!

[Talenn]

Steve:

That sounds really cool and is exactly the type of thing I was talking about...something to reign in the overpicked units. That seems like it might fit the bill quite nicely.

It seems conceptually similar to the way SSI's old Kampfgruppe did it. You bought formation and were 'dealt' the unit types. A Panzer Battalion could be MkIIIs, MkIVs, or Panthers. It depended on year and a random factor weighted for availability and it worked quite well. Where it fell short was when, for instance, a Tank Bn would always cost 'x', but could vary so wildly in effectiveness that games could be made unreasonable. Still, it was the price of doing business and it went a long way towards people going out of their way to pick overly large amounts of armor.

Here's looking forward to that system. In the mean time, I'll just stick with AI generated forces or battles drawn from a 'metagame' that my group might considering throwing together.

Thanx for the sneak peak!

Talenn

[wodasini88]

ok heres my view on this topic. First you're choosing to play a QB with armor and chooing not to ask the other player to not get uber amounts of stugs, it's your own problem they want to win obviously so you should find a way to win other than trying to go head to head against the german tanks(just like in CMBO you never go head to head with the german guns). So either do something about it before the game or deal with it. War is unfair and when you're competing you're going to pull out all the stops to win. From what I see BTS is learning a lot about how to make the players play the game their way so hopefully in the future you can pick the "divisional" option instead of playing the standard QB

[Col Deadmarsh]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

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).

The King Tiger in CM is a good choice when playing on a big map. The gun might be a bit of an overkill but the extra armor can keep that thing alive for the entire battle. Just make sure to watch your flanks.

Although it can be argued that the Tiger I was overpriced because it's slow and not as well armored in the front as the Panther, it is 20 points less, so in the right situation, it's not a bad choice. The trick is to use it for infantry support, not as a tank hunter. When you can get a positive ID on a vanilla Sherman, bring it out and go head to head with the Allies.

As for the Panther, this was one of the best units in CMBO. Better mobility and frontal armor than the Tiger I and only 20 points more. Explain why you think this unit is overpriced. I've seen plenty in my Email/PBEM games so you must've been the only one not to buy any.

[ October 23, 2002, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[Battlefront.com]

Glad you guys like the basic concept Yeah, it certainly isn't totally new (forgot about how it worked in Kampfgruppe!), but combining it with actual TO&E is, as far as I know, for a game of CM's scale. Generally, games at the tactical level do not have much structure to them beyond that level. CMBO certainly was like that with CMBB moving a bit further away from the norm by having Division Type. But like I said above, this does not go far enough.

Now, for specifics like having Corps or non organic divisional assets at your disposal... there will have to be some way of accounting for this. We don't have this aspect of the redesign completely fleshed out yet (too early), but I don't think this will be a problem. It could be as simple as having an option to allow mixed "battlegroups". This would also account for planned as well as unplanned ad hoc units being tossed together for a specific purpose. A late war German examples might very well have seen SS tanks supported by LW infantry and Heer artillery. This needs to be allowed for in a way that doesn't undermine the system's core reason for existing.

Steve

[Tarquelne]

That sounds really cool and is exactly the type of thing I was talking about...

I'm trying to decide between "cool", and "excellent" or possibly "brilliant!"

[Vanir Ausf B]

Here's a few ideas on how to deal with the StuG issue without having to resort to "don't buy StuGs" type rules.

* Play random dates

StuGs are at their most dominant from roughly August '42 (when the F8 Late drops from %50 rarity to %30) until April '44 (when the Soviet 85mm guns switch to APBC ammo). So with random dates you will have to deal with uberStuGs less than half the time.

* Play random terrain

Open fields with long line of sight are the StuG's friend. To beat them you have to flank them or get within a few hundred meters for close range shots. As it is now, I would suggest setting trees to moderate and setting the other 2 to random. In the 1.01 patch random hills will never pick "flat". For the 1.02 patch it would be nice if BFC would do the same for trees by making it so random trees never pick "open". It would still be possible to get some fairly open maps with some combinations (light trees, low hills, farmland), but most of the time you will get a map that will give the Soviet armor a chance.

* Make the Germans attack

Perhaps not all the time, but StuGs are better on the defense, as has been pointed out.

* Set the division types to "infantry".

The Germans get far fewer points in the armor category than the Soviets with this division type. They can still buy StuGs, but they can't buy a lot of them.

* Set weather to something that will often result in less than ideal ground conditions.

As has been mentioned, StuGs are crappy off-road in bad weather.

Unfortunately, this option doesn't work real well at the moment. Using the same settings will always result in the same ground conditions, and some ground conditions are impossible to find in some regions. For example, it is not possible to get dry or damp ground in the Southern region during the summer months. Setting weather to "clear" ALWAYS results in very dry ground, and setting it to "overcast" ALWAYS gives wet ground (in the south). The 1.01 patch fixes a bug in this area, so hopefully things will be less predicable soon.

Doing these 5 thing should prevent StuGs from dominating QB games, by-in-large. There will be occasions when the luck of the draw will result in ideal StuG conditions, but that sometimes happened in the real war, so deal with it.

One observation I have made is that the thing that makes the StuG such an issue for so much of the war is that Soviet guns seem to consistently under perform what the unit stats screen suggests. For example, the 85mm gun becomes available late in '43 on the SU-85. At 500m its AP ammo is shown as penetrating 114mm at 0 slope and 90mm at 30 degree slope. The StuG's armor is 80mm at 10 degree for the upper hull and 80mm at 21 degrees for the lower hull. Therefore, on paper the 85mm AP round should penetrate the StuG frontally pretty easily. It doesn't. The targeting tool gives a kill chance of "low" and testing shows that this is the case. Shells usually break up or only partially penetrate.

Do a test comparing the Sherman 76 and the T-34/85 in the summer of '44 against StuGs. According to the armor penetration tables in the unit descriptions the 85mm is a little better. But in testing you will find that the US 76mm penetrates more consistently.

In fact, it is interesting to note that the most effective anti-armor tanks the Soviet have for a good chunk of the war are lend-lease. The Valentine IX with its 6 pounder can take on the StuG frontally out to about 500m. After the 1.01 patch this should increase as it will be given a longer gun. For most of '43 and early '44 it's rarity fluxuates between 30% and 40%, so you will occasionally be able to buy it at regular cost. It's a cheap tank, so a small 5 or 10% percent rarity hit isn't too bad. Just make sure to bring some other tanks as well since it's anti-personnel capabilities are small.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

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

1942 T34 and 1942 StugIIIF

The latter is a bit cheaper. Yet, it cannot be killed by the T34.

Have you tried a flank shot?

Seriously, this issue has been brought up before; check out the previous thread.</font>

[Wreck]

The player could waive this more realistic approach and instead Cherry Pick units by hand. However, they would ONLY be based on what that Division type had available. That means you could take the Panzer Divisions' only PzIV Company instead of a mixed bag unit. However, if the Division only has *one* of these companies you can not purchase two!

Sounds like you are well on your way to inventing rarity by availability. However, the idea you have for calculating availability by using actual large-unit TOEs is a great new idea! CM keeps adding more and more historicity in easy-to-use form.

[Enoch]

Cool, and by cool I mean totally awesome.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Glad you guys like the basic concept Yeah, it certainly isn't totally new (forgot about how it worked in Kampfgruppe!), but combining it with actual TO&E is, as far as I know, for a game of CM's scale. Generally, games at the tactical level do not have much structure to them beyond that level.

Also, if you allow boardgames, it reminds me of the higher level TO&Es included in Panzerblitz and its offspring for players who were interested in roll-your-own scenarios. At one point earlier this year I pulled out Panzer Leader to use their charts to try to set up a BO battle, but didn't find it particularly useful in this context due to discrepencies in units and equipment between the two games. But something of this sort would be welcome in CM.

Michael