Flamethrowers

[Battlefront.com]

Totally forgot to answer a question of Puff's from the previous page!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> If you are still around, I'm interested which sources were used to define the squad OOB. Can you recomment a book? I can find source for companys or bigger, but not for small units. <hr></blockquote>

Low level TO&E (tables of organization and equipment) is very difficult to find. Easier to find out the firing sequence of a Tiger 1E's carbs I have spent nearly two months solid on this very subject. Let me tell you, it sucks that the documentation is so difficult to get, not to mention how disapointing it is to find errors, inconsistancies, and conflicts with other sources.

One of the best sources for German TO&E is George Nafziger:

home.fuse.net/nafziger/

I think I have most of what he has ever had up for sale

A good source for Red Army TO&E is Steven Zaloga's "Red Army Handbook"

Another good source is Leo Niehorster's website and printed works:

www.freeport-tech.com:80/WWII/index.htm

Note that this stuff is all pretty scattered and subject to the frustrations I noted above. Really sucks to have 4 sources and each saying different things about the same formation Lots of detective work necessary, hence the 2 months thus far instead of what should have been a couple of weeks tops.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>it would be nice to have at least a general idea of what contributes to victory and what doesn't<hr></blockquote>

er... you do already. Losing units is bad, keeping them is good. Capturing flags is good, losing them is bad. Keeping them neutral is the next best thing to having them in your control.

Pretty simple

Seriously, I don't understand why people don't already know this. The manual explains this and we have certainly posted this information MANY times in the past. But just to clear this up...

The Victory level (Axis Minor, Allied Major, etc.) is based on the following for each side:

1) # points of enemy units destroyed

2) # points of enemy units captured (not as valuable as above)

3) # of victory flag points held at end

4) # of exit points secured

5) # of "bonus" points preset by scenario designer

The higher number is set to 100 points and the other is proportionally reduced to whatever it is. A ratio is figured out and the Victory Level is awarded based on a hardcoded chart (listed in Manual or a patch ReadMe if you have an older one).

As far as I know exit points for infantry type untis are awarded strictly based on unit cost divided by headcount. So no, if a Squad exits with its LMG but not its SMG the system doesn't care. And neither do I since we are talking about a mere point or two

When a crew served weapon is destroyed the player is awarded a certain percentage of the value of that unit. The rest of that value is retained by its crew. Kill or capture the crew and you get the full value of the unit tallied up in your favor.

BTW, this is why killing your own surrendered troops doesn't do anything good for you. So now they aren't captured, but killed. Since points for killed units are more than captured, you just helped out the enemy! The logic is that captured troops come at a cost to the captor while dead ones just need to be burried.

Steve

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

[SurlyBen]

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

2) # points of enemy units captured (not as valuable as above)

<hr></blockquote>

Hmm. And all this time I thought captured enemy units were more valuable than killed enemy units. (Of course, I have no idea why I thought that...) If true, it gives me a whole new use for my 2in mortars. ("OK, I want all you prisoners to stand right here in this clearing...")

Surlyben

[JasonC]

"is it not possible that your laser like focus on unit pricing is the result of your addiction to ladder matches?"

It is a fair question. The answer is no, it is not possible. Because I am not addicted to ladder matches. I don't play in them at all.

Those who don't care about prices don't care about changed prices either. No one who truly doesn't care about unit pricing would mind an iota if FTs cost 25 pts instead of 37 pts. Yet people advance the fact that they personally don't care about it, as a reason not to change it when some others do care. This makes no sense. The change does not bother them, if they mean what they say. It pleases some of their potential opponents. More people are pleased, so what is not to like? It would be different if somebody had a strong conviction that the price matters a lot, and shouldn't be a hair under 35 (say). But nobody with that view seems to be present - or willing to say so.

It is to say the least bizarre, to say the most almost rude, for people who profess as loudly as possible that they don't care about something, to insist on having that something their own way. What the heck is it to you what FTs cost? So, why the heck don't you let those who want them to cost 25 pts, have FTs that cost 25 pts? Is it written in the stars that nothing shall be done to accomodate anyone else, but your mere indifference must outweigh their concern?

As for why I care about it when some do not, it is because I notice many ahistorical practices in CM games that are based on incentives created by the pricing structure, and I also notice sometimes involved and annoying negotiations over ground rules to avoid their exploitation in friendly games. A good price system distracts as little as possible. But prices that are out of whack distract, by creating favored and penalized force mixes and tactical counters.

FTs are a doctrinal counter to "closed defense", mostly short range and reverse slope defensive deployments. I would like to have them in my tool bag for that purpose. But as they are priced and modeled, I do not have them in my tool bag for that purpose, because taking them means giving up enough that I come out worse off, not better. Somebody else who doesn't pay attention to such things might not notice or care. Bully for him - but people who don't care about something have precious little reason to scream about it.

As for the idea that FTs are simply a high variance asset, worth their price because of their potential payoff, I wonder whether people who think that have analysed the cost and payoffs of FTs and bazookas on that theory. I sure have. And it is obvious to me that a bazooka team is a high variance asset, which potentially can KO 13 times its price with one round, and quite often can KO 2-8 times its price.

FTs don't do that. One fellow said earlier that the upside is sometimes one of them takes out a company - and I wondered what he has been smoking (besides the AI, I suppose). A platoon is the rare case (5% perhaps, 10% at the outside), maximum upside. A squad is the common successful case (not more than 50%). These are payoffs 2-4 times smaller than a bazooka round - at 1/2 to 1/3 the range, from a slower team - for more than 2 1/2 times the price.

An AT team can be well worth its cost due to its potential, though high variance effects - and valuable even when it doesn't kill things because its threat will modify enemy vehicle behavior. But an FT team does not pass the same test. If you buy two of them (as in the standard engineer platoon), the chances that you will KO far more than 74 pts worth of defenders with them is very low. The chance that you will lose them is quite high. It is clear to me their expected value is negative, and lower than many other things I could take in their place.

This may not be clear to you. Fine, then buy them and try to use them against me. I have nothing against other people shooting themselves in the foot. You may not care one way or another. Fine, then don't bother your head about the subject, and find another subject to discuss, where you do care about the issues under discussion. But a positive argument in favor of the present pricing is not in evidence, nor is there anyone willing to stake even the outcome of a game on it. Those of us who think the FTs are overpriced are to be put out for those who don't care one way or another, and who would be just as happy with 25 pt FTs as with the 37 pt FTs they have now. This is called listening to player feedback.

As for bid and ask, I am perfectly willing to let others have FTs at 25 pts to use against me. And I don't need any approval from BTS to choose that pricing, in the form of free extras points over any agreed fight level, etc. Pricing is not a subject that needs to remain centrally controlled - it perfectly controllable by the players, through mutual agreement.

As for BTS only hearing complaints about prices when I bring up the subject of prices, um, hello, I don't bring up the ones I don't have a problem with. If I think the price is about right, I never mention it. As for waving hands about how prices will never be perfect failing to satisfy me when I think a price is out of whack, um, that is sort of what it means to think a price is out of whack. It means one thinks it is far enough from perfect to have noticable effects on incentives, and thereby on forces typically faced or used.

One might convince me a price I thought was wrong is actually right by showing me how it reflects this or that strength I've overlooked, or by proving some successful use of the item is more effective than I thought. One might convince me that one honestly disagreed with me about a price by taking the other side of it and showing me it could work. But just saying "I don't care much about prices and they are never perfect, so shut up" is obviously not going to convince me of anything. If you don't care about convincing me on the subject, fine, but don't go around complaining about how hard it is, if that sort of hand waving is all you have to offer.

In the past, sometimes the response to pricing concerns has been to urge us to focus on modeling changes instead. Which is what this thread started out doing. I'd settle for either, really. The veto of modeling changes obviously belongs to BTS. Pricing is not obviously in the same category, because nobody needs BTS' approval to change unit prices by mutual consent.

[Massattack]

Except, Jason, that player feedback is not the only criteria for making changes in the game. BTS have proven well over the time CMBO is out that they have listened to player feedback (far more than most companies) and made numerous tweaks. These have been in cases where they have considered the feedback convinced them that a change would be an advantage. You have failed to convince BTS that this change is necessary for the pricing of FT units. You have also failed to convince me and numerous other players ,as is obvious from all these circuitous threads and posts. Even if the makers don't care particularly one way or another about the exact pricing of particular units, why the hell should they change it just because a minority of players are not happy with that particular aspect of the game.Get real.

[Slapdragon]

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

"is it not possible that your laser like focus on unit pricing is the result of your addiction to ladder matches?"

It is a fair question. The answer is no, it is not possible. Because I am not addicted to ladder matches. I don't play in them at all.

yadda yadda yadda

In the past, sometimes the response to pricing concerns has been to urge us to focus on modeling changes instead. Which is what this thread started out doing. I'd settle for either, really. The veto of modeling changes obviously belongs to BTS. Pricing is not obviously in the same category, because nobody needs BTS' approval to change unit prices by mutual consent.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, and the game will support you. There are several ways you can get per quod cheaper flamethrowers that does not involve having to learn to use them better in games.

1) Ask your opponent for a +10% bonus because you intend to use horribly under modelled and difficult to use units. Many players will be happy to oblige.

2) Ask a thrid party to create a scenario for you on the style of a quick battle with the understanding that you will get slipped some extra units.

3) Play the next higher price band to offset the huge cost of flame throwers.

Otherwise, I would read Steve's comments for content and understand the very good reason why flamethrowers should not be changed.

Any change made to the game requires a certian amount of work and playtesting.

Right now, in general, experienced players find that the flamethrower works when used correctly, does not work when used incorrectly, and functions in a historical manner on the battlefield. In particular some of the most experienced scenario designers, whom BTS I am sure relies on for feedback, and qiute satisfied with the model as present.

One or two players, for game and victory purposes, want a change made to flamethrowers. Since they are modelled as accurately as is possible at this juncture, then price is where they want the change. The reason appears that they want the flamethrower to go from rare and used on special occasions, to a common device of victory.

However, there are hundreds of schools of thought who want hundreds of changes made. Some people only play commonwealth and want those units made cheaper on principal. Some people think German armor is undermodelled, and again, in principal, want them dcheaper. Some people want more expensive SMGs, more expensive US artillery, less expensive light tanks and tracks, more expensive zooks team, less expensive zook teams, and then I got tired of using the search function and stopped. Everyone had some pet unit which they desired to be a little cheaper or more expensive, at least when they took the unit into battle.

Now, if BTS acceded to each and every demand, the game would never proigress because all BTS would be forever tweeking prices without any system or plan based soley on the personal feelings of a few players, which may or may not be shared by all.

Since the QB is secondary to secenarios, all of this mess can be avoided by just not getting into it without compelling reason, and without a change to the model rather than to individual units.

Now we come back to you and your quandry. First you say the flamethrower is useless. The answer to that is of course, if you find them useless, do not use them. But now you want them in your "bag of tricks" but only at a cheaper price. Now I have taken an economics class, and know that pricing in an open market does not work the way you think it does. Basically, if a unit (of any type -- CM units to underwear in the store) is useful, and the cost of manufacture is not a negating issue, then the unit will be priced at what the market will bear, especially in a situation of a monopoly. That flamethrowers are useful enough to many to purchase, that they are useful, sometimes even crucial in the right battle as proven to me in Berli's battle and earlier experience, means that the cost set is justified when and where I do need them. Of course, taking a flamethrower is always a gamble that the situation will not call for them, and in fact, few situations aside from close assault did.

So, just because women's underwear is not useful to you, does not mean that women's underwear should be reduced in price all around the world. It is useful to some people in some situations, and those peopel will pay top dollar rather than be without it. So perhaps it is best to think of flamethrowers as something you personnaly do not need in battle because they are too expensive, while the rest of us will buy or not buy them as the situation presents itself.

Otherwise, your only recourse, would be to develop a new system of prices that take into account every unit in the game, and creates a new balance of prices, and then sell it to BTS, being careful to listen to their and others objections in the process, and hope your system is better than the current system in an obvious manner, thus encouraging adoption. We know there is a new change in the system, called rarity, which will make flamethrowers even more expensive in QBs. They were afterall, rare on the ground.

[illo]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The logic is that captured troops come at a cost to the captor while dead ones just need to be burried.<hr></blockquote>

bad logic. captured troops are VERY valuable for intelligence. captured commanders are VERY valuable for propaganda. Both much more valuable alive than killed.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Hmm. And all this time I thought captured enemy units were more valuable than killed enemy units. (Of course, I have no idea why I thought that...) If true, it gives me a whole new use for my 2in mortars. ("OK, I want all you prisoners to stand right here in this clearing...")

Surlyben<hr></blockquote>

That's what I thought too.

Thanks for clearing things up Steve, I guess I need to revisit my "readme" files that came with the patches. I will print off your reply and keep it ... oh wait, no you are right, the ratio of victory was posted on the forum before by you, and I already wrote it down somewhere, come to think of it.

For some reason, I just assumed that scoring was based on losses of friendly forces as a percentage of the whole, not destruction of enemy forces. No idea why I did.

So where did Redwolf get 2.6 from?

And I guess that answers my question as far as you know that a 12 man squad losing 6 guys and then exiting would give the enemy points for the 6 men dying and points for the friendly player for exiting just 6.

[Haohmaru]

Says here in the manual about victory points...

victory points are awarded for the following:

-control of victory flags

-casualties caused to the enemy

-captured enemy (counts double that of casualties)

-exited units...

-any bonus set by the scenario designer

So what's the story with points for captured units??? Is the manual lying or have you made a mistake? I always thought it was a good thing to capture units as they would be more valuable alive, and it is a very difficult thing to achieve. If they are worth less then we might as well be executing prisoners with the area fire command if we have the ammo to spare. Such suggestions by people in the past have made them labelled as psychos but if captured units are worth less you could say that it's good play.

[Redwolf]

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

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?

<hr></blockquote>

Michael, the only person to post precise information is Steve, and he clearly said he wouldn't publish the exact formulars for things like these(*).

In thread 019346 http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=019346 I listed my method to determine how much a unit is worth in knockout points. This method also works for exit points and that is where I computed the 2.7 (sorry, not 2.6) and 2.3 factor from. Please read the thread before complaining.

In that thread I also posted the precise way to do such a calculation yourself and I also offered that I would do the math for other people if they ran game tests they are intrested in. This offer especially applies to scenario designers. I don't understand how a scenario designer who is this interested in the score (which I think is good) missed out on that thread.

The reason why I say "probably" with regards to the squad-intern LMG is that it would take quite some time to do the test. For whole-unit knockout tests you can just place it in the editor, but to have half a squad killed and the other escaped you will need a number of test runs. I don't have that much time. I know that 1/3 men killed in a sqaud is roughly 1/3 of its value, but from non-statistical tests I figure that it makes a slight difference whether the LMG is lost or not. But as Steve says, even if the LMG counts differently, we are talking single points here and you cannot do anything to influence here, so why is it such a big deal?

I you want to take the offer that I do the math on your tests, please be sure to follow the scenario test instructions precisely. One (and only one) small (not big) flag and it must be neutral at the time you ceasefire.

Please send requests to redwolf@cons.org. I'll be on vacation next week, though.

(*) no, I do not intend to do this research for morale, exact VP ownership and similar game mechanics, don't ask (not addressed to you Michael). The victory point calculation is needed for scenario designers and tournameny umpires and hence worth knowing. The other stuff would only increase the tendency for gamey 'just above the breakpoint' tactics.

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

[Redwolf]

Regarding the split of knockout and purchase points - as nobody likes the idea I'll drop the idea. Thanks for considering.

Still, I call scenario designers (and quickbattle map generator programmers) to thick about the number of flags in scenarios. As Steve said, victory should first of all depend on the flags, then on losses. Only overwhelming losses should overwrite the flags.

But right now, and that applies both to quickbattles and scenarios, the number of flags is often insufficient. Keep in mind that you might have more "knockout points" on the map than you think. The sum of points in the unit selection only shows what you bought, but at knockout time you have additional points from crews and from the company/battalion discount not applying.

I would be happy to make example calculations for interested parties.

And no, I do not loose my battles due to overwhelming losses

[Berlichtingen]

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

Still, I call scenario designers (and quickbattle map generator programmers) to thick about the number of flags in scenarios. As Steve said, victory should first of all depend on the flags, then on losses. Only overwhelming losses should overwrite the flags.<hr></blockquote>

That only makes sense if the scenario designer wants flags to count the most. I often create scenarios where I want the deciding factor to be casualties

[WWB]

Damn Skippy Berli.

This whole debate makes me wonder if numerical scores are a good idea at all. The world could definitely get along on victory levels alone, and people would not bitch about getting 3 more VPs.

WWB

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Steve Thanks for the links!!! :cool:

But you must be wrong about the captured units, the manual says they have the double worth of killed units. Also, if a crew served weapon is destroyed, you get the full points for it. If the crew is killed, you get additional points. I have tested it a while ago.

When we are already talking about victory conditions - I wonder how the problem of Russian casualties will be solved. They produced 40000 T-34, but the avarage lifetime of a T-34 was less then two weeks (I have read it somewhere, I hope it's correct). The Russian nearly always lost much more men and material on the battlefield then the Germans - with the current system they would always loose. But there casualties didn't hindered them to win the war.

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by wwb_99:

Damn Skippy Berli.

This whole debate makes me wonder if numerical scores are a good idea at all. The world could definitely get along on victory levels alone, and people would not bitch about getting 3 more VPs.

<hr></blockquote>

Sorry for interrupting again. If you make it binary win yes/no, but still base it on a mix of flags and casualities, then you still face the same problem of balancing these two against each other.

If you want to count only flags, then just count them manually.

[WWB]

Not quite redwolf. What I mean is keep the current points counting in place, but make it completely invisible to the end user. You would get a "Minor Victory" but you would not worry about the difference between 57 and 59 points.

WWB

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by wwb_99:

Not quite redwolf. What I mean is keep the current points counting in place, but make it completely invisible to the end user. You would get a "Minor Victory" but you would not worry about the difference between 57 and 59 points.

<hr></blockquote>

But you would care for 49 or 51 points, so the problem is all the same.

It would also kill the new scoring system for tournaments with unbalanced scenarios, which is IMHO a great thing and adds more to realism than all of this thread

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

[Battlefront.com]

Puff,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>But you must be wrong about the captured units, the manual says they have the double worth of killed units. Also, if a crew served weapon is destroyed, you get the full points for it. If the crew is killed, you get additional points. I have tested it a while ago.<hr></blockquote>

DOH! That teaches me to improvise from what Chalres wrote to me at 3am after 7 hours without brain food

Yes folks, Captured guys are worth more points than dead ones. Huge, major brain fart Illo's reasonsing is the correct batch. However, what I said is also true when you are talking about large scale.

Steve

[Redwolf]

[never mind]

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

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

Puff, DOH! That teaches me to improvise from what Chalres wrote to me at 3am after 7 hours without brain food

Yes folks, Captured guys are worth more points than dead ones. Huge, major brain fart Illo's reasonsing is the correct batch. However, what I said is also true when you are talking about large scale.

Steve<hr></blockquote>

I wonder if Charles was already talking about CM:BB??

However, it has indeed only a small influence on the victory.

BTW, crews...

[Battlefront.com]

Jason,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>As for BTS only hearing complaints about prices when I bring up the subject of prices, um, hello, I don't bring up the ones I don't have a problem with. If I think the price is about right, I never mention it. As for waving hands about how prices will never be perfect failing to satisfy me when I think a price is out of whack, um, that is sort of what it means to think a price is out of whack. It means one thinks it is far enough from perfect to have noticable effects on incentives, and thereby on forces typically faced or used.<hr></blockquote>

Fair enough and it is, BTW, why I have spent much time debating this issue and similar ones in the past. If we really didn't give a crap, as continue to maintain, we would just ignore you and everybody else from the start. That is the easiest way to handle issues like this.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>One might convince me a price I thought was wrong is actually right by showing me how it reflects this or that strength I've overlooked, or by proving some successful use of the item is more effective than I thought. One might convince me that one honestly disagreed with me about a price by taking the other side of it and showing me it could work.<hr></blockquote>

Hehe... please point me to even one example of this regarding pricing You have never, to the best of my knowledge, ever backed down from your convictions no matter how people have argued the opposite case. So either you are always right or you don't really care what other people have to say. We, on the other hand, have a track record for listening and changing the way things work in the game based solely on feedback from others. Pretend all you want that this is not the case, but it sure doesn't do anything to bolster your point of view in the eyes of your peers.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>But just saying "I don't care much about prices and they are never perfect, so shut up" is obviously not going to convince me of anything. If you don't care about convincing me on the subject, fine, but don't go around complaining about how hard it is, if that sort of hand waving is all you have to offer. <hr></blockquote>

And I thought you were literate enough to read this stuff I am not suspicious that you can't read and have someone else type up your rambling statements for you. I have never said anything of the sort like you said above, nor will I. Instead I have argued (better in my opinion) against your views and have found support for my perspective enough to think on balance things are fine as is or could swing either way so leave well enough alone.

What Jason has warped into a "I don't care, shut up" attitude opinion of me is actually as far from the facts as can be. I never have said that I don't care about an aspect of the game or people's viewpoints of it. I have said that it doesn't matter at times (like in this thread) or that it isn't worth the time to change, but that is only after consideration of the points based on their merits (like Redwolf's). However, through years of experience here I have found that too often there is no pleasing persons who quibble over minor details to the death, especially when there can never be one right answer yet they maintain theirs is the only right one. Something which you have a solid track record of. I've answered your arguments, now you just want to win by boring me to death. Since I can opt not to read your posts, this is not a tactic that will get you very far

Redwolf:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>But you would care for 49 or 51 points, so the problem is all the same.<hr></blockquote>

Correction. One would only care if one was Hell bent on winning a ladder tourney Otherwise, nobody should care. While we don't want to do anything to harm such competitive play, we can't fudge up the whole works just to please someone who is intent on caring about which side got 2 points more than how the game was played. That would be a horrible misappropriation of our precious time.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Hi Redwolf; if I did not indicate gratitude for your efforts in that earlier post, I should have.

Truth be told, I have no interest in running "lame" tests, doing math, or worse, having someone else do math for me - it just doesn't strike me that you can achieve any decent results that way. As Steve pointed out with regards to Sherman v. Panthers, setting up billiard table tests really doesn't reflect a typical CM game anyway.

If Steve can't keep this stuff straight, how can we?

Perhaps we can sit tight and see how CMBB addresses these issues, then await the revisit of NWE - whenever it may be - and the new engine.

I am certainly not interested in devising ways of "cheating" or "counting cards" so to speak, to get those extra one or two victory points in such and such a scenario, but would like to have a handle on how it works during scenario design. I think the victory conditions as is are not only vague but inflexible (only one exit zone which must be the full width of a map, etc.) and would like to see both drastic improvements in future, but also workarounds to the existing system that can help make VC more elegant if possible.

I will read with interest anything else you choose to say on the subject, but I am afraid I don't have an interest in participating in any testbeds. Frankly, I don't see why we should have to, and i kind of think the results would be disappointing and prone to inaccuracies - especially if fuzzy logic to some degree is used (you think the LMG counts extra, Steve says it does not - but he was also fuzzy on the PW issue, too, so where does that leave us?) "1 or 2 points" becomes a big deal once multiple computations start being made.

What happens for units purchased in a different time frame, then put into the scenario editor and the time changes again. Which date does CM presume their "value" comes from - or do all, say, infantry squads have a flat rate of "value"? Does killing a Volskgrenadier squad count for as much as an equal number of men in an SS Motorized squad? And how would you be able to tell that from a test?

What has been offered in this thread has been helpful, though, so thanks to all for that. Again, I guess I am still trying to break old Squad Leader habits in some of my basic approaches to the game. Not a big issue, didn't mean to make a tempest in a teapot.

[Redwolf]

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

[about 49:51 score]

Correction. One would only care if one was Hell bent on winning a ladder tourney Otherwise, nobody should care. While we don't want to do anything to harm such competitive play, we can't fudge up the whole works just to please someone who is intent on caring about which side got 2 points more than how the game was played. That would be a horrible misappropriation of our precious time.

<hr></blockquote>

Sorry Steve, I think you took my comment out of context.

I was just replying to the remark that hiding the exact score (and saying only loss/win/draw) would make the problem go away, which of course it doesn't, it just makes testing the victory conditions harder

[Michael Dorosh]

And one of those SL things I refer to was the method of counting casualties - 2 VPs for a squad sized unit eliminated, 1 for leaders, crews of half squads. All very simple, and done without reference to the "value" of the unit. Better or worse than CM? I'm not equipped to judge. But you could work out reasonably balanced VC for scenarios with that simple system. I can't even remember if the "point value" of flags has ever been discussed (in the manual or here?) I've experimented with using multiple flags, but that takes some work too to get right, especially if your force is a small one. There, you have the military approach of denying the enemy the flags rather than physically garrisoning them yourself - probably the approach Steve and Charles want us to take anyhow, right?

Might be an idea to include an option where flags occupied only count as points for one side or the other, for example, and I miss the option that SL designers had of making casualty points irrelevant for one side or another.

You can do that now, I suppose, by using tons of flags in a group (if you want to emphasize key terrain over casualties).

Or can you?

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

[Redwolf]

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

I will read with interest anything else you choose to say on the subject, but I am afraid I don't have an interest in participating in any testbeds. Frankly, I don't see why we should have to, and i kind of think the results would be disappointing and prone to inaccuracies - especially if fuzzy logic to some degree is used (you think the LMG counts extra, Steve says it does not - but he was also fuzzy on the PW issue, too, so where does that leave us?) "1 or 2 points" becomes a big deal once multiple computations start being made.

<hr></blockquote>

Clarification: I was talking about 1 - 2 victory points as in purchase or knockout points. That does not mean the final victory percentage. In a game with 400 points in flags and 6000 points in losses the 2 victory points make for .2% victory level - that isn't even displayed.

So even if the LMG is worth 7 points (which is my imaginable maximum), it still don't see how that matter, neither in gameplay nor in scenario design.

The bug with the second half of split squads counting as dead should probably be fixed for CMBB, though...

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

What happens for units purchased in a different time frame, then put into the scenario editor and the time changes again. Which date does CM presume their "value" comes from - or do all, say, infantry squads have a flat rate of "value"?

<hr></blockquote>

I don't know, and that is a pretty unsupported feature of the scenario editor anyway

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

Does killing a Volskgrenadier squad count for as much as an equal number of men in an SS Motorized squad? And how would you be able to tell that from a test?

<hr></blockquote>

IIRC, I tested different squads and loosing squadmembers caused victory points as in cost of the squad divided by men in the original squad and then multiplied by lost men.

That means, Fallschirmjaeger cost more victory points per man than rifle or SMG squads. That is the reason why I stopped buying the advanced german squads, BTW.

You test that by setting a squad in front of a tank, run one turn which should kill some of the squadmembers (and hopefully not the tank or a crewmember of the tank) and then you press ceasefire. If you have a properly set up scenario you have a neutral small flag and can start calculating how many victory points the tank owner got. Then you repeat the test for the other squad you are interested in. One test takes you 5 minutes or so, at least after the first one where you screw everything up

My offer to do the math if you run the scenario was in no way meant as an insult to anyone. The calculation is pretty tedious and I have a program where I just throw the flag values and final score in. People can also have the program if they want. You need a Common Lisp compiler, though.