Flamethrowers

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

I would appreciate it if people wouldn't turn words in people's mouth, that doesn't serve any purpose.

Jason says that SMG squads are more effective for the cost in CMBO. To which extend is arguable and it is even more arguable whether the problem can be fixed with a price adjustment at all.

Jason has a very black-white view. But still, what's the purpose of this flamebait? It's not that everybody else is *that* good in absorbing other people's arguments.

P.S.: Jagdtiger == gun damage<hr></blockquote>

I once managed to damage the track. Then he killed my last tank. I tried it with a Zook from behind, several hits, not penetration .

Not to mention the other Jagdtigers. :eek:

At the end Jagdtigers were sitting on both VLs. I was so pissed that I told mommy how gamey my opponent was .

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

I was so pissed that I told mommy how gamey my opponent was .<hr></blockquote>

Shouldn't really play when drunk.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

Shouldn't really play when drunk.<hr></blockquote>

American slang, Andreas, not British

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

[JasonC]

No, I don't have a black and white view, it is quite multi-colored. But perhaps others have not noticed their reasonable options and how they fit together, making this less than obvious. I am perfectly aware than pricing is always a "subjective" exercise, but I deny that means it is arbitrary or cannot be improved, by anyone willing to be honest about the subject.

You see, there is a real world way of dealing with subjective disagreements about pricing or valuation issues. With everyone understanding perfectly well that they are disagreements about subjective judgments. That method is the formula of fairness involved in "making a market" - more popularly known as the principle "if you cut, then I choose". Real world market-makers quote a price at which they will take *either* side of a transaction, and really are willing to take either side (at prices very close to each other). When they do that, you know they are giving you their honest opinion about a proper valuation. That estimate may still be wrong, but they have no *incentive* to get it wrong.

But if someone will only take one side of a transaction, he has every interest in talking up how high the price should be (if he is selling) or how low (if he is buying). He has no incentive to give as accurate a price as he can. In market terminology, he is said to be "just jawing", meaning he is not making a serious offer. And subjective or not, folks who are "just jawing" are quite properly *ignored* by those trying to estimate the fair price of anything. While those actually willing to "make a market" - to take either side of a trade - are quite properly listened to, even though their judgments are every bit as "subjective" as the first set. What is different is that the second sort is honest (or daring) enough to expose himself to loss if he is wrong. While the first is not.

Now to my multi-colored judgment of FTs in CMBO as things are now. I can see a possibility that BTS set the price of FTs as high as they are now - 37 per team - because they thought they would prove to be very powerful weapons, far more powerful than HMG teams or AT teams. In which case, they presumably intended to model FTs as quite dangerous, things that would make enemies get out of the way.

Well, my experience with them is that they aren't good enough for that. I then quite open-mindedly think, "perhaps they meant for the price to be right, and did not expect the degree of vunerability and uselessness FT teams actually show in practice. In which case, perhaps they would be interested in ways of changing FT modeling to make them as effective as the price they put on the things, seems to have intended." So I support the suggestions of others about ways to improve FT survivability and performance, because it would make them worth their price.

But am I black and white about it? Not at all. I am quite open to the alternate proposal that actually the degree of uselessness and vunerability of FTs teams was intentional on BTS' part. Perhaps they really did mean to make them dangerous to their owners, not to enemies. That is a perfectly plausible reading of the real world effectiveness of FTs. You could argue about whether anybody would have fielded tens of thousands of the things if they were so worthless, but it is a defensible position.

But if the modeling is accepted as correct, then the pricing seems out of whack. One fellow suggested a revised price of 25 pts instead of improved survivability, and I said that would be fine with me. Another noted that an LMG42 is a better all around weapon, and of course it is priced even lower. It seems to me quite possible BTS meant for the modeling to be as weak as it actually proved to be, but did not realize how overpriced the FT teams would be as a result.

This might happen because they didn't mauch care about the pricing (as Steve seems to admit), or more simply because they may have used an abstract formula that put too much weight on the potential blast value of the FT and not enough on the likelihood it wouldn't live long enough to use that blast value. I tell Steve that his pricing of them is appropriate only for a hollywood version, and instead of denying it I get a homily on the impossibility of pricing, and its lack of importance.

But am I black and white about either of the two possibilities - undermodeled or overpriced? No. I recognize perfectly well a third theoretical possibility, that they might be both properly modeled and properly priced. Or at least that some may honestly think so. But I notice that if that were the case, somebody who thought so would be willing to "make a market", instead of just flapping his gums.

In other words, he would not insist the price was right only if *I* buy FTs at that price, but would also be willing to pay that price himself. Similarly, when Slap claims the SMG prices are right, he should be willing not just to flap his gums about it, but also take *either* side of the trade. SMGs should not just be cheap when *he* buys them, they should also be cheap when I buy them and he doesn't.

I am willing to consider the possibility that the price was correct and FTs are undermodeled - and have seconded a suggestion if that is the case (FTs in engineer squads). I am equally willing to consider the possibility that FT modeling was correct by FTs are overpriced - and have seconded a suggestion to address it if that is the case (FTs costing 25 pts). And I am also willing to consider the possibility that they are properly modeled and priced - but only if those who claim so can put their money where their mouths are and prove it to me.

Because if they pay current FT prices for FTs modeled as they are now, my personal subjective impression is that they will waste their resources on them and I will kick their rears as a result. And I am perfectly willing to put my money where my mouth is in that regard. And as far as I can tell, those claiming both modeling and pricing of FTs are right, are not willing to take either side of the trade.

I don't care which of the three options you think is more nearly correct. I am not at all black and white on the subject. You can have whatever honest opinion you please, about the proper effectiveness and proper pricing of FTs. But I do insist that one pick one of the above, if one is going to be honest about it. Anyone who honestly thinks they are bargains at 37 pts a pop should be willing to buy a flock of them and prove it to me.

If no one is willing to, I take it as a sign they don't really believe it themselves. They just say so because they don't want to bother about changing anything, or they generally don't buy them anyway, or they don't care about pricing anything (in which case they have precious little to say). None of which is an actual conviction that the present pricing is correct.

One then sees some with a conviction that it is not correct, willing to take either side of a trade, and others without an opinion on the subject, not willing to take either side of the trade. In any real market, no market maker would have to think twice about which direction a more correct price lies, in that state of market opinion. Despite prices never being perfect and all resting on subjective value judgments, and often being about minute differences, it is still perfectly possible to improve pricing by using such "feedback" information. Happens every day.

[Redwolf]

I think that people miss my earlier comments about the seperation of purchase points and knockout points. Usually they're the same, but not i.e. for artillery spotters. If you bought a 240mm spotter team for 364 points, the opponent will only get less than 1/10th of that for the knockout.

I think that this should be extended to some other units. These units are units that are very fragile, but still have a high price. Either because they can be devastating if they take their low chance of getting through (e.g.flamethrower teams or Nashorn) or they are purchase-expensive because of transport capability, but are very fragile and only lightly armed (e.g. halftracks with no .50cal).

It is my observation that the current situation disturbs play. I have seen quite a few players letting a game run out because they only had fragile units left, although they would have enough combat power. Don't understand me wrong: if you're depeleted, you can't push, no problem here. But in the current situation people sit on quite capable combat equipment, and they can be very sure that they capture that flag or another. But statistically they will not win points because their units are fragile and expensive and even taking the flag with moderate losses will cause too many knockout points for the opponent, more than the flag(s) are worth.

Again: I basically want the purchase price for things like Nashorn, flamethrower teams and 1-MG halftracks to be the same, just the points you get for the knowckout might be worth looking at.

And I don't want a complicated scheme or lowering it for many units. Just some exceptionally teethy but thin-skinned units.

I also think that this is good for designed scenarios. As we have seen, some scenario designers don't want to bother too much with knockout points (and there is nothing wrong with that), but still their scenarios are won or lost based on the knockout points (most scenarios don not have enough flags, designers place flags by location, not VP value, and there should be nothing wrong with that). With the new scheme people can move forward as they see fit combat-power wise, and not victory-points-statiscis-wise, and the scenario designer can put a bunch of Nashorns as "gambling material", without ruining the player's win chances.

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[aka_tom_w]

It is not without GREAT hesitation that I weigh the option of replying to one of Jason C's posts....

BUT to be succinct...

Jason, is it not possible that your laser like focus on unit pricing is the result of your addiction to ladder matches where opponents pit thier wits in the pre-game selection of units ? (the Buy Phase I will call it).

Should we not only consider that the pricing scheme in CMBO ALSO serves as a loose or flexible GUIDELINE to help scenario designers design maps and populate their maps and battles with roughly equal and fairly distributed opposing units (if in fact a fair fight is what the scenario designer intended?)

The SOLE focus on the pricing scale as the be all and end all of bidding for strategic advantage in the Buy Phase of a, usually ahistoric, Ladder Match Meeting engagement should be considered nothing more that an optional extra of the CMOB pricing scale and, NOT the main purpose of the point system. I must agree with Steve when he suggests:

"You think the ENTIRE game is based on pricing. I strongly disagree. Pricing need only be ballpark correct. Why? First of all, there is NO SUCH THING as perfect pricing. "

-tom w

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]</p>

[Slapdragon]

This is very true. I heard someone complain that a Sherman E8 costs near in price ot a Panther, even though 10 Shermans can be defeated by 7 Panthers. But this ignores the huge anti-infantry advantage of the Shermans, the flexibility of 10 units over 7, and the Shermman's gyros. People line up 10 Shermans and 7 Panthers on a pool table and play last one standing to develop statistics that are worthless.

BTS uses a complex and imperfect formula to determine unit costs. I know this because each time a change is made to a tank, the cost points change slightly. BTS just does not hack a point off or add one, it lets their formula do the work for them.

The result is that my Shermans facing all German infantry or light armor are at an advantage, while my Shermans facing heavier armor are at a disadvantage points wise.

The same goes for the flamethrower. Both sides are equally punished if the points make it more expensive than in the perfect world. The only thing to really care about is if they perform in a historical way. Since they appear to be historical in use, they are ok. But, in fact, a well used flame thrower of any type is very powerful. One in the wrong place can ruin your day.

As for playing someone to prove or disprove something, I would only do it if it where a scientific test and not penis measuring or grudge match. As it is I played a Berli scenario and was quite satisfied that in their proper environment, the flame thrower is a high stakes, high reward weapon that can turn the tide of a battle with its effect on morale during assaults.

[Priest]

I agree with Slappy, Tom, and Steve.

[Redwolf]

I fully agree that it is not possible top get all the prices right anyway and that they are not worth fighting about.

However, then please don't make the game result that much dependent on knockout points. This applies to game designers, quickbattle generator programmers and scenario designers.

It is a valid goal to punish a player who took exessive losses in taking the flags, but is it fair to punish a player who lost 3 flamethrowers (6 not overly specialized men plus 2 cheap easily replacable devices) in the same way like someone who lost a tank (an expensive, hard to transport, piece badly needed for any further advance or as reserve)? Especially with a look to reality, this doesn't seem right.

And yes I can live with the purchase points as they are now.

[ASL Veteran]

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

That method is the formula of fairness involved in "making a market" - more popularly known as the principle "if you cut, then I choose". Real world market-makers quote a price at which they will take *either* side of a transaction, and really are willing to take either side (at prices very close to each other). When they do that, you know they are giving you their honest opinion about a proper valuation. That estimate may still be wrong, but they have no *incentive* to get it wrong.

But if someone will only take one side of a transaction, he has every interest in talking up how high the price should be (if he is selling) or how low (if he is buying). He has no incentive to give as accurate a price as he can. In market terminology, he is said to be "just jawing", meaning he is not making a serious offer. And subjective or not, folks who are "just jawing" are quite properly *ignored* by those trying to estimate the fair price of anything. While those actually willing to "make a market" - to take either side of a trade - are quite properly listened to, even though their judgments are every bit as "subjective" as the first set. What is different is that the second sort is honest (or daring) enough to expose himself to loss if he is wrong. While the first is not.<hr></blockquote>

Hmmm, I have a degree in Finance and I've worked for a brokerage firm for several years and I have to admit that I don't recall ever hearing market makers or pricing described in this manner. Perhaps I've heard it way back in college under another name or something.

It should be pretty obvious that market makers put a bid and an ask price out on stock - the bid being the price they (the market maker) are willing to buy the stock at (from you, Joe Public) and the ask being the price they are willing to sell the stock at (to you, Joe Public). There aren't any market makers who buy and sell a stock at the exact same price - or if there was they would be broke before the end of their first day. There is always a spread between the bid and the ask and that spread can be as little as fractions of a penny or as large as a dollar or more (which is dependent upon the volume and availabitity of the security).

Option pricing is even more wacky. The various exchanges don't always cross and you can have an ask on the Amex and a bid on the Philly that are the same but the Amex won't cross to the Philly because they expect the Philly to cross to them. You could have your option order sitting on the Philly not being filled even though the best ask happens to match your limit on the bid . Some traders even put out 'teaser' bids and then pull them before anyone can hit them on it - and of course nobody ignores it cause they think he's 'jawing' - everyone tries to hit it, but if he is quick he pulls it before anyone can. They sometimes do that to test interest levels in their options. Oh, you should hear the screaming when that happens!!

Ahem, well enough of that - I'll try to keep it on CMBO (I get enough of that throughout the workday). At any rate, the price of a security is going to be related to a large number of factors including availability, volume, corporate strength, or perception of corporate strength, as well as rumors among other things. However, there is one thing that I know is not included in the price of a stock - it's effectiveness on the battlefield. I'm really not sure what relevence your discussion of market makers has on the pricing of flamethrowers in CMBO. :confused: Is BTS making a market on flamethrowers or something? Do any players buy and sell flamethrowers to each other before a Quick Battle? If so, I guess the spread would be pretty large since the volume would be so low. Perhaps BTS could have a spread where they were willing to buy flamethrowers from Quick Battle participants at 25 and then resell them to other Quick Battle participants at 40. I think they could get a spread like that since the volume is so low. They could then use the points they earn on the spread to pay Kwazydog's salary!!

Perhaps a more basic supply and demand approach to pricing would be more appropriate. Of course the supply would be unlimited, but the demand? Might be weak, thus causing the price to fall. Or perhaps you can come up with an arbitrary Jason C value based pricing model and attempt to apply it to all the units in CMBO to see where your model differs from BTS's - both positively or negatively. Really, pricing in CMBO should probably be examined using a more all inclusive approach rather than to just pick one thing or another and go on and on about it. If the pricing model works for 95% (supposedly equal to the amount of CMBB code already completed) of the things in CMBO, then that should be close enough for most people. The other 5% can be regarded as anomolies or outliers.

[Battlefront.com]

Well... I struggled through that last bunch of messages, and though ASL Veteran's words summed things up pretty well:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Really, pricing in CMBO should probably be examined using a more all inclusive approach rather than to just pick one thing or another and go on and on about it. If the pricing model works for 95% (supposedly equal to the amount of CMBB code already completed) of the things in CMBO, then that should be close enough for most people. The other 5% can be regarded as anomolies or outliers.<hr></blockquote>

While we do care about pricing (as Jason wrongly suggests we don't), and do try very hard to get things "about right", we can not, and WILL not sit around arguing day in and day out about each and every one of the hundreds of units in CM. Not only do we have better things to do with our time, but we would also rather put a 155 round through our heads

Although we have a fair and systematic approach to pricing, such a system will never be perfect, and even Jason admits that. However, every time we have a debate about this we are always wrong in his view. I can't think of a single time I have attempted to debate his logic that he has not given us an honest and pompous free admission that we might have a point. The laughable attempts at insulting us in his previous post are just that... laughable.

The truth is that like many items the price reflects the potential of the unit. If you do not know how to utilize the unit to acheive its potential... don't expect to get your money's worth. The price should not be dropped simply because it is often misused. I mean with all the bitching we have seen over the years about stuff like how unrealistically easy it is to lose Panthers at 100m against 3 Shermans you would think we should slash the price of the Panther based on Jason's logic.

Some people use flamethrowers and never have success. Some use them and LOVE the results they get. Others are inbetween. This yeilds a case for either lowering the price, keeping it the same, or raising it. Sorry Jason, we can not have pricing based on the context of its user. If you can't use FTs right, try improving your tactics. Same goes for people who lose their armor all the time as well.

Are the FTs prices right? Who is to say since nobody, not even Jason, has the absolute right answer (although he is never wrong ). But they are priced "close enough". Raising or lowering the price (both of which have been suggested in this very thread!) by 5 points or so won't do anything, so why bother spending 70 some odd posts on the issue?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>However, then please don't make the game result that much dependent on knockout points. This applies to game designers, quickbattle generator programmers and scenario designers.<hr></blockquote>

The #1 factor in battle results is flag points. Next is losses, but losses in relation to the enemy's. So if you lost 2 flamethrowers and the enemy lost a single armored car (or something similarly priced), then all things are equal. The only thing that might not be equal is how much death and destruction each set caused. So let us take a look at that assuming a FT team costs 40 and an armored car costs 80 points (US FT and US M8)...

An armored car can only be in one place at one time. If it gets killed or immobilized, that is it. 2 FT teams can be in two locations at the same time and have to be picked off one at a time. So the player with 2 FTs has a chance of losing 0, 40, 80 points while the guy with the armored car 0 or 80.

Both are fairly high priority targets, but the FTs are much more concealable than an armored car. An armored car can possibly kill as many as a platoon of men, although I for one have rarely seen them do much of anything even close to that. Two FTs can wipe out many times that in theory, although they generally do not.

An armored car doesn't have much of a chance of destroying a heavy fixed fortification, building, or significant armored vehicle. A FT team can defeat any of these, plus denny territory of any type (provided it can catch fire).

An armored car can race around the map, but certain terrain can not be crossed and there is a chance of bogging in many types of conditions. FTs are definitely slower, but they can negotiate any terrain in any weather that infantry can.

What is the point of this comparison? To once again demonstrate that things aren't as simple and straight forward as they might appear. Yes, the effectiveness of each might be quite different from game to game, player to player, due to tactical use and random factors. Personally, I think armored cars are pretty easily lost so I would most likely opt for 2 FT teams if given the choice. But like I said above we CAN NOT price things based on such variables. We would be fools to even try.

Steve

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Michael Dorosh]

I always thought that losses were measured against your side's total force, not against enemy losses. More evidence to support the theory that more info on what goes on "under the hood" would be a good thing.

Still waiting on my question about exit points for units that have suffered casualties, for example.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I always thought that losses were measured against your side's total force, not against enemy losses. More evidence to support the theory that more info on what goes on "under the hood" would be a good thing.

<hr></blockquote>

No, it is only losses, starting size does not matter. See previous threads on victory score.

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

Still waiting on my question about exit points for units that have suffered casualties, for example.<hr></blockquote>

I am sure they are counted by men, with LMGs more expensive. So a 12-man squad which lost 6 men and the other 6 exited should be roughly (depending on where the LMG is) (squad-cost * 2.6) / 2 for the owner and the same for the opponent.

BTW, Steve, did Madmatt ever submitted the split-squad victory point bug to Charles? (the second half-squad counts as dead even when alife).

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[Slapdragon]

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

No, it is only losses, starting size doe snot matter. See previous threads on victory score.<hr></blockquote>

Doe snot? That is about the funniest thing I have ever heard you say deer.

[Redwolf]

Steve,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

What is the point of this comparison? To once again demonstrate that things aren't as simple and straight forward as they might appear. Yes, the effectiveness of each might be quite different from game to game, player to player, due to tactical use and random factors. Personally, I think armored cars are pretty easily lost so I would most likely opt for 2 FT teams if given the choice. But like I said above we CAN NOT price things based on such variables. We would be fools to even try.

<hr></blockquote>

I think you did not understand that I was talking about the knockout points. The choice you describe is at purchase time, which I don't have a problem with.

Imagine two players a few turns before the end of the battle. For both, there is another flag to capture and they have fairly effective units left.

The first has normal, robust units like rifle squads, artillery and tanks.

The second has flamethrowers, Nashorns (against Americans with .50cals) and halftracks.

Both forces are equally capable of taking the victory location, that means they are worth the same from a capability standpoint and hence from the purchase price. But player one will statistically capture the flag with much fewer losses because he has the more robust units. Player two is very likely to take losses that are higher (point-wise) than the flag is worth.

Depending on whether he understands the point calculation the second player will either not attack at all although he is capable of taking the flag (that is bad from a gameplay standpoint) or he will take the flag and wonder why he came out second (bad from a gameplay satisfaction standpoint).

It is the same that an artillery spotter representing a 364 points module does not bring 364 points for the opponent when killed. Like the spotter, I think that units that are extremly fragile should score lower (although the purchase price stays the same).

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Both forces are equally capable of taking the victory location, that means they are worth the same from a capability standpoint and hence from the purchase price. But player one will statistically capture the flag with much fewer losses because he has the more robust units.<hr></blockquote>

Which illustrates my point exactly. You can not pick a single, specific, context sensitive case and advocate for a change. The same forces in an entirely different context might favor the exact opposite side for different reasons. I also think the Germans should take an extra pounding in your example because the force is less robust. In other words, opting for a force which has advantages traded off for robustness should not be propped up when it comes to victory calcuations.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Player two is very likely to take losses that are higher (point-wise) than the flag is worth.<hr></blockquote>

Then Player Two should back off and not risk losing obviously vulnerable units

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Depending on whether he understands the point calculation the second player will either not attack at all although he is capable of taking the flag (that is bad from a gameplay standpoint) or he will take the flag and wonder why he came out second (bad from a gameplay satisfaction standpoint).<hr></blockquote>

This is assuming that the player cares I for one have never, not in 3 years of playing the game, ever once thought along these lines. I think along military lines only. If I think I can achieve victory with an on balance favorable result (which has NOTHING to do with victory points), then I do it. Otherwise I bag out.

I am beginning to suspect that much of the complaining I am seeing here is the result of getting a wee bit into a war of spreadsheet calculations rather than a battle of simulated military units.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>It is the same that an artillery spotter representing a 364 points module does not bring 364 points for the opponent when killed. Like the spotter, I think that units that are extremly fragile should score lower (although the purchase price stays the same).<hr></blockquote>

Units which are fragile generally do score lower in terms of their purchase price. FOs are one of the few exceptions which strongly deviate from this. The reason is that if you kill an FO you simply eliminate a trained crew, not the battery of artillery which it represents. If you kill a FT team or mortar, you KO'd the weapon as well (at least that is the assumption). Since the potential for the artillery battery is not harmed per se, but the FT or Nashorn or whatever is... huge difference.

The price of a unit is based on its strengths and weaknesses, with the addition of Rarity in CMBB. The balance of strengths and weaknesses determines its price, which should be reflected directly when points are tallied up at the end of the game. It is the only fair and non arbitrary system I can think of.

Steve

[Redwolf]

Let me give an example where the exact, point-wise victory level matters outside of ladder games:

We have a few tournaments based on Nabla's excellent scoring system for tournaments that allows the use of unbalanced battles. It basically compares not two opponents with each other, but for each scenario the guys who play the Axis side with the other guys who play the other side. To make any useful comparision, we have to take the exact percentage of the win into account (normalized to sum = 100).

This is a case where you want to play for each point. And don't tell me it's ladder crap. The scenarios are realistic. In fact, this kind of tourney allows you to play actually realistic games, which means that you have unbalanced forces.

[John Kettler]

Steve,

I think it's great that FTs will apparently have improved mobility in CMBB. I feel they've needed work in that area for some time. What I'd like to know, though, is whether the Russians will get some benefit from their FT which was specifically designed to be hard to spot, being disguised as a service rifle and backpack? I believe the designation was ROK-1, but I'm working from feeble memory, not references here. Also, will the Russian static FTs be modeled? They could make attacking fortifications really exciting.

While I'm at it, will engineers and the like be given the means to breach barbed wire, and will the Russian low wire obstacles be depicted? From what I've read, these were nasty surprises and very hard to spot.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Redwolf]

Another way to explain why I think that extremly fragile units should have different knockout and purchase values.

I am talking about and only about units that:

- cost quite something in their category, because they are very dangerous

- their dangerousness(?) is only exceptionally good against a small subset of enemy units and/or they are only effective in a small subset of situations

- (or that have a high price purely based on transport capability and have very low combat value)

- and they are vulnerable from fire from a large subset of the opponents units

At purchase time, the fragility only counts once, for the chance to win the battle and the price is set appropriately (lowered for being fragile).

But at play time, the fragility counts twice. First, the chance to win the battle (objective-wise) is lowered, and then on top of that you get punished victory-point-wise.

So whatever the rebate for being fragile at purchase time is, should be doubled at knockout time.

Mind you I'm not talking about many units and a rather straight correction, like knockout points is 60% of purchase points. I am not talking about Greyhounds etc.

[Battlefront.com]

John,

I checked and the ROKS-2 was the standard backpack flamethrower. I wasn't aware that this was not a conventional backpack FT design. As for static flamethowers, neither the Soviets or Germans are going to have access to these. They border are borderline in regards to CM's focus (which is NOT large scale preapred defenses) and would be too complicated to add at this time.

Redwolf... what can I say, but I disagree with your logic. First of all, your list of criteria for getting some variable discount is not easily translated into game terms. I look at what you wrote and on the one hand feel your definitions exclude the FT and the other include nearly half the units in the game.

The fact is that if you are given a fragile asset then you had better know that and use it wisely. It doesn't matter if the asset is a 88 Flak when the other guy has a ton of mortars, a Nashorn against a swarm of light tanks, a Flamethrower team left standing alone against a company of infantry, or trucks trying to transport troops in the mud. Every unit has its shortcomings and opportunities for success. It is up to the commander to figure out how to best use them. There should be no bonuses for loss through miss use or bad luck.

If you have a FT and lose it, but in the process take out a King Tiger... or a Nashorn which plinks off 3 T-34s before being killed... why on Earth should there be a fragility exception made in such cases? If I were the guy that lost something big and expensive to something already cheaper to begin with, and worth even less if I kill it, I would be pretty PO'd at such a system. In a game everything should even out, so trying to prebalance and skew the results before hand is fruitless.

The system will remain as it is because on balance it is fair. The counter suggestions you have made so far have not convinced me there is reason for change. Life is full of tough breaks, and CM should not pamper that reality.

Steve

P.S. FTs themselves will be quite rare in CMBB with Rarity on, so I suggest playing with such an option and you will likely not have to worry about quite a few of the units you have mentioned.

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Michael Dorosh]

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

I am sure they are counted by men, with LMGs more expensive. So a 12-man squad which lost 6 men and the other 6 exited should be roughly (depending on where the LMG is) (squad-cost * 2.6) / 2 for the owner and the same for the opponent.[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]<hr></blockquote>

I am tired of reading misinformed threads by people "who think" or "who are sure" or "suspect that." Sorry Redwolf, don't mean to take it out on you, but why is it so hard to get something definitive on this. I see Steve has missed it once again. Where do you get 2.6 from?

My point is valid; a better definition of how the game determines victory is in order. Your clarification about casualties on their own, not as a percentage of starting force, is enlightening. Perhaps it should be common sense or I am just dense, but that never occurred to me. Is there a page in the manual that I missed?

EDIT - just read steve's comment about thinking militarily rather than examining spreadsheets; I agree to a point, but for a scenario designer (or a really frustrated player), it would be nice to have at least a general idea of what contributes to victory and what doesn't, especially for someone trying to finetune the creation of a scenario and is unsure of where to set the bar re: victory conditions.

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]</p>

[Priest]

Man I wish Steve wasn't so darn thorough so I could argue those same points he did.

BTW it is Ladder crap!

[WWB]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

P.S. FTs themselves will be quite rare in CMBB with Rarity on, so I suggest playing with such an option and you will likely not have to worry about quite a few of the units you have mentioned.

<hr></blockquote>

Steve,

Are we going to get the option to purchase Engineer units without FT teams in CMBB?

I suspect this would be more realistic than the current system, at least for the Germans. There is pretty clear evidence that they kept their FTs handy, but ony brought them out on special occasions.

I am not nearly as familiar with the Soviet situation, first-hand accounts are rarer and Zaloga fails to mention flamethrowers in his otherwise detailed TO&Es.

WWB

[gredeker]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

John,

I checked and the ROKS-2 was the standard backpack flamethrower. I wasn't aware that this was not a conventional backpack FT design<hr></blockquote>

From the Encyclopedia of Weapons of WWII, edited by Chris Bishop, p. 270:

"In design terms there was nothing really remarkable about the ROKS-2 apart from the attention paid to the appearance of the weapon. One of the tactical lessons learned during World War I regarding flamethrowers was that any solider noticed by the enemy to be carrying a flame weapon immediately became the target of every weapon in sight, so if the appearance of the flamethrower could be altered in some way the user had a better chance of survival. Accordingly the Soviet designers went out of their way to make the ROKS-2 appear to be an ordinary infantry weapon. The main fuel tank was configured like a soldier's ordinary backpack, and the flame projector was made to look like an ordinary rifle, and in fact the butt of the projector was taken from the standard Soviet Model 1891/30 rifle. The only noticeable flamethrower features were the small gas pressure bottle under the pack, the hose leading to the projector, and the rather prominent ignition device at the muzzle of the projector. On the battlefield these features would probably have merged into the general background."