Flamethrowers

[Redwolf]

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

<hr></blockquote>

I don't like that at all. If you get (scenario or buy) the expensive squads and then use them as artillery fodder, you loose worse than with vanilla squads.

I assume that scheme also counts on very basic vehicle destinctions, so that the loss of a Sherman would count as much as loosing a Panther. I like that even less.

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

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?

<hr></blockquote>

I don't understand. What exactly are you trying to do and what didn't work?

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

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?

<hr></blockquote>

Well, only for the scenario as a whole (not different policy fo different VLs) and it applies for both players.

But other that that, the group of flags in a single place is exactly what some scenarios need, IMHO.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Redwolf:

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

Sorry about that. Didn't realize how your statement fit into the previous question. I do, BTW, agree with you that hiding the score isn't a good idea. We fully support competitive play, even if we do not specifically cater to it.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Shermans v Panthers.<hr></blockquote>

Since it was a manual system, you could set it up that a Panther was 10 VPs if lost, etc., sky was the limit. Maybe a good system would be to allow the scenario designer to assign values to units, rather than simple purchase points as an option anyway.

It's a matter of preference; in some cases one situation would be appropriate (ie high quality troops being worth more when dead) and in others - if you are trying to clear out a factory, what does it matter if you kill conscripts or fanatics? They are just as dead.

I'll chalk this up to different approaches, I can see where you, Charles, Steve et al might think differently than me so I won't make a big deal about it. But setting values ahead of time would be a neat option - we set "exit/no exit" points for units, so why not let scenario designers set the amount of "points" a unit or flag is "worth"?

Then you can truly have some flexibility and better ability to simulate situations that in real life would be considered a win, even where in CM it would not - ie "take that hill at any price so the division can withdraw through the valley."

[Michael Dorosh]

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

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.<hr></blockquote>

Thanks for taking the time to respond, it is appreciated. I suppose common sense is supposed to dicate that using your expensive, say, pioneer troops as front line infantry is not a good tactic - so perhaps there is some merit in your displeasure at "better" squads casualties being worth more after all. It's worth more serious thought than I'm capable of doing at work, though.

Thanks again.

[Battlefront.com]

I also don't like the simplistic ASL method. Losing a M4 Sherman or a Conscript squad should not be the same the other side losing a Jagdtiger or an Elite squad. Specialized squads should also "cost" more in terms of victory points than run of the mill common squads for the same reason.

As for having an optional ability to tag specific units with victory point modifiers (either good or bad)... this is something we think might happen when the game engine is rewritten. The reason is that we are planning on allowing more "mission" based battles and this would likely be a key componant of that. But such a suggestion is not possible for CMBB.

Also, when we rewrite the game engine people will generally be buying forces like "Small Combined Arms Force" or "2 Infantry Companies and 1 Medium Tank Platoon with Light Artillery support". Combat Mission will then issue forces as would be realistitic for that particualr nation at that particular time and place. Yes, I am sure we will retain an "anything goes" system as well, but I think many people will like the new concept better.

Steve

[Priest]

Okay now I really have to chime in because Steve is way too diplomatic.

To quote Chris Jericho......

Jason, SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!!

We get it, you do not like the pricing of some units. We get it you only complain about units you think are priced wrong. We get it you think it leads to ill use of units. Well you know what do not play those people then!

I play CMBO all the time with no "house-rules" against a myriad of opponents and never have I had a situation where my opponent was hitting me with a wave of SMG troops or using the pricing against me with FTs, or whatever you are talking about.

Actually I pretty much ignore the score also as I know when I have won and I know when I have lost regardless of the score. It really does not matter what an FT is worth in relation to price and victory points cross referenced with effectiveness. When you are beat you are beat!

More important is the fact that I can use the units in the game properly, and they can be used properly although it takes something we all like to call "skill". If you do not have some then get some. I mean GEEZ! how many times does Steve have to answer you. I mean really!

Now you are a quite knowledgeable guy and I enjoy most of your posts, but you might has well drop this, because your question has been answered (quite well actually) and everyone seems to either agree or at least accept the reasoning, thus you are just damaging your own character.

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

[Enoch]

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

As for having an optional ability to tag specific units with victory point modifiers (either good or bad)... this is something we think might happen when the game engine is rewritten. The reason is that we are planning on allowing more "mission" based battles and this would likely be a key componant of that. But such a suggestion is not possible for CMBB.

Also, when we rewrite the game engine people will generally be buying forces like "Small Combined Arms Force" or "2 Infantry Companies and 1 Medium Tank Platoon with Light Artillery support". Combat Mission will then issue forces as would be realistitic for that particualr nation at that particular time and place. Yes, I am sure we will retain an "anything goes" system as well, but I think many people will like the new concept better.

Steve<hr></blockquote>

I love it when you guys drop stuff like this on us out of the blue. That's one reason I keep coming back and checking in on most threads, you never know where some interesting little tidbit will show up.

I know it will be a while until the engine rewrite is finished, but I do look forward to it.

[xerxes]

I like the force purchasing approach. I might even go back to player pick with that.

-marc

[Michael Dorosh]

Thanks all for their patience in this thread. Very enlightening, Steve, et al, thank you.

I very much look forward to a "mission" type battle with adjustable VP levels in CM II.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

The weakpoint of CM is IMO the small focus.

Yes, I think the victory conditions in the battle works. It has some flaws sometimes - let me remind you on the threat about an Axis occupied VL, only held by a crew vs two Allied tanks closer to the VL then the crew. Yes, I think the comparison of casualties is a good and simple way to determine the victory on the battlefield (At least I wasn't able to find a better one) But only if you don't leave the scope of CM.

You know the cliche of 'Hold the bridge to the last man'. Well, my forces were destroyed and in CM terms I was defeated. But if you leave the borders of CM - you have stopped the advance long enough, reenforcements were able to approach, and in the end the whole operation was a success. So who (except my dead pixel heros and their cathode-ray mother ) cares that I have lost the battle?

I wonder what BTS will figure out. Stratic Doodads?

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

[Battlefront.com]

Priest,

Direct, to the point, and nothing that I can find fault with

Thanks guys for liking stuff we aren't going to get to you for a couple of years

Puff, larger mission stuff can be simulated by skilled scenario designers right now. It is vey possible to make a sceanrio where capturing locations means everything and destruction of troops nothing, or the other way around.

I will say this... how many of you, and how frequently, have disagreed with CM's victory rating? I do not mean thinking you should have been up or down one level, but looking at the end of a battle and think "you GOT to be kidding me!!!"? In the 2+ years that CMBO has been in people's hands (Beta Demo included) I don't think I have ever seen anybody complain about this without someone figuring out they were all wet (i.e. troll or misguided). If my perception of this is correct, then the victory system works a heck of a lot better than it does in other games

Steve

[Andrew H.]

The difficulty with applying market analysis to prices in CMBO is that units in CMBO have to have oneprice for all circumstances. Because the value of a unit [i.e., how much you would voluntarily pay for it] varies with the terrain, the type of battle, and the equipment purchased by the opposing force, there is always going to be a disparity between the price CMBO charges for a unit and the value that unit actually has. Thus a Panther in an open, large lightly wooded rural area fighting the US in June has a greater value than a Panther fighting a British force in a closed in urban area. But the cost of the Panther does not vary as conditions change, even though the value of the unit has changed dramatically.

The rational approach to a situation where cost does not equal value is to purchase units whose value the player believes exceeds the unit's cost, while eschewing units which seem to be expensive compared to their value.

Essentially, the argument of the flamethrowers-are-overpriced (FAO) faction is that the price of flamethrowers should be adjusted downward to better reflect their actual value. The other group -- the scenarioists -- seem to argue that FTs are priced appropriately because they are effective in certain scenarios.

Another way of characterizing this pricing argument, though, and I think a more accurate way of characterizing it, is to describe it as an argument over what other circumstances should be considered in setting the price of a unit in CM. Because there can be only one price per unit in CM, the "other circumstances" that affect the unit's value are, or course, very important.

Jason's view seems to be that a unit's cost should reflect its value during a QB. This is reasonable, of course, as the QB marketplace is where most of CM's unit-purchasing transactions take place, so it makes sense to use the value that a unit has in this marketplace to establish the cost of a unit.

People who play scenarios, on the other hand, never experience the conditions that obtain in QBs, and so reasonably don't believe that they should be stuck with unit prices that reflect conditions that they won't experience. Scenario players are less price sensitive than QB players: while a unit's price has an effect on determining who won both a scenario and a QB, a person playing a scenario does not have to worry about pricing in selecting effective units to fight with in the first place -- they are provided by the scenario designer.

BTS's viewpoint seems to be that because conditions will change from battle to battle and cannot be accounted for dynamically, the best way to determine point costs is to completely ignore conditions and base unit cost solely on the combat qualities of the unit in question, even though the importance of the combat qualities of a particular unit will vary widely depending on the type of battle, terrain, and troops and equipment chosen by the opponent. This is a different viewpoint from the scenario-player viewpoint, although for most practical purposes the scenario players would tend to be more supportive of BTS's pricing philosophy, since scenario designers can choose appropriate units for appropriate battle types.

For a given set of conditions, it is probably true that you could develop a pricing scheme that would have a very very high correlation with a unit's value in that set of conditions.

Apparently there are city-fight scenarios where FTs are very much worth their point cost. However, it is probably the case that FTs are almost never worth their cost in QBs -- and it may also be the case that QBs never generate the type of maps in which FTs would be worthwhile.

While it would be conceptually easy to establish an ruleset that would establish unit prices for a given set of conditions, CM only permits one unit price for all conditions. Determining which conditions should be used in setting unit prices is purely a matter of philosophy, and is not really susceptible to proof in the scientific sense.

Jason can prove (to my satisfaction, anyway) that SMGs are underpriced in QBs; economic theory of this sort is well established and works quite well. What neither he nor anyone else can prove is that unit pricing should be based on a unit's performance in a QB. There are several very compelling arguments in favor of this viewpoint, of course, but this decision is essentially a matter of philosophy, and cannot be proven or disproven.

So the fact (and I think it is a fact) that FTs are overpriced for QBs does not mean that they are overpriced in CM. You can't determine whether things are overpriced in CM without making a philosophical choice of, among other things, whether QBs matter at all.

BTS has made the philosophical choice that pricing should be based on a unit's inherent attributes, without reference to the units performance under certain circumstances, and in particular without specific reference to a unit's performance in QBs. So an argument that a particular unit is overpriced in a QB is not really relevant to whether BTS should adjust a unit's price. On the other hand, a discussion about whether BTS's pricing scheme should operate as it now does could have some global effect on unit prices. But there's no way to "prove" that BTS made the wrong choice.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Steve Arrgh - you mean I'm wrong?!? Blasphemy! . Well, okay - it was only a hidden beck (CAMPAIGNS CAMPAIGNS )

Well, you are right, indeed there was only one time I really was surprised, and that was the threat I have mentioned above. There was a very detailed description...I can't find the threat anymore. IRRC the Allied player had two tanks ~50m away, the Axis player only a hidden crew ~70 meters away, verified after the battle result was calculated. The battle ended with an 51(axis):49 draw - the big problem was that only because of this a player lost the round a tournamnet.

Maybe you know how the VL control is determined?

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

BTS has made the philosophical choice that pricing should be based on a unit's inherent attributes, without reference to the units performance under certain circumstances, and in particular without specific reference to a unit's performance in QBs. So an argument that a particular unit is overpriced in a QB is not really relevant to whether BTS should adjust a unit's price. On the other hand, a discussion about whether BTS's pricing scheme should operate as it now does could have some global effect on unit prices. But there's no way to "prove" that BTS made the wrong choice.<hr></blockquote>

Great post, Andrew. I would argue that usefulness in QBs should be the primary basis for CM unit prices as that is the game-type in which the price matters the most.

I don't have a real problem with the FT price, even though they are not very usefull in most games. Why? Because if they were priced according to their actual usefulness they would be much more common in QBs, which would be unrealistic. Everyone would by 1 or 2 in every game "just in case". Blah! I view their overprice in CM as a built-in rarity factor.

My problems with CM prices have more to do with units that are underpriced, such as SMGs and turretless TDs with highly slopped front armor. But that is an old arguement...

[John Kettler]

redeker,

Thanks for confirming my somewhat fuzzy memory and slightly off acronym. I hope Steve noticed this and that appropriate coding measures are instituted to properly model this military oddment.

The thread is quite a read, though a bit deep and heated in places. No word yet on the Russian ankle biter wire obstacles either.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

Andrew,

That was a very good set of observations there. Well presented and I don't think I disagree with any of it as presented. CMBB doesn't waiver from the philosphical stance we have in CMBO, except it now takes into consideration at least one variable - Rarity - when it is opted for by the player/s. So while a FT will not be priced based on if the map is farmland or a city, it will be priced based on how likely it would be in the battle to begin with. This will largely remove the QB problem by, in general, making such a purchase unlikely due to the price. However, it won't affect the scenario makers at all since this is only a guideline for them.

Puff, I can't say for sure what happened to you without seeing a saved game. The rules for this stuff are more complicated than folks know, including LOS needing to be established if the flag is not already friendly, distance to flag matters, etc. We are documenting this stuff a lot better for the CMBB manual, so not to worry

Steve

[Berlichtingen]

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

Puff, larger mission stuff can be simulated by skilled scenario designers right now. It is vey possible to make a sceanrio where capturing locations means everything and destruction of troops nothing, or the other way around.<hr></blockquote>

Example. You must hold this bridge at all costs with a rifle company (372 pts). The bridge has 1 large (300 pts) VL on it and the high ground behind it has 3 large (300 pt) VLs on them. If you hold the VLs at the end, it doesn't matter what casualties you took

[Cauldron]

flamethrowers:

Firstly, Andreas is NOT the becon of virtue for CM and we do not have to convince him of anything.

In fact the most useful thing he could do is shut up. STFU

A program I watched 3 years ago brought together Russian and German fighters at Kursk. Amongst them was a trainer for FT's from the SS.

Thier prime non city role was apparently the clearing of trenches ( quickly), similar to the buldozer tanks in Iraq. In any case he said they were " very effective".

Other points on keeping FT's with units or incorporating them within units seems a good idea to me.

off to the eastern BBQ party

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Andrew,

We are documenting this stuff a lot better for the CMBB manual, so not to worry

Steve<hr></blockquote>

<<collective sigh of relief is heard>>

[Slapdragon]

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

flamethrowers:

Firstly, Andreas is NOT the becon of virtue for CM and we do not have to convince him of anything.

In fact the most useful thing he could do is shut up. STFU

A program I watched 3 years ago brought together Russian and German fighters at Kursk. Amongst them was a trainer for FT's from the SS.

Thier prime non city role was apparently the clearing of trenches ( quickly), similar to the buldozer tanks in Iraq. In any case he said they were " very effective".

Other points on keeping FT's with units or incorporating them within units seems a good idea to me.

off to the eastern BBQ party <hr></blockquote>

Warning, Troll Alert.

Besides, just for funsies, I decided to do a search. We have 7 different Pupchen threads asking the same thing, and these rather rare examples of extreme idiocy. Here is a few links just to warm your hearts:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=022598

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=021402&p=

Now, back to the discussion.

[Michael Dorosh]

Ok, ok - since this conversation is degenerating, let me see if I have this right.

At the end of each and every turn, all the VPs earned to that point in time are totalled for each side. The two totals are compared to each other, added, and then divided into percentages out of 100.

So let's say the Axis is defending, and currently holds a 300 point victory flag. They have also inflicted 100 "points" worth of casualties on the enemy.

The Allied player has no flags, but has inflicted 400 points worth of casualties on the Axis player.

Assuming that the flag is known to the Allied player as held by the Germans, both players will see a 50% victory level on their screens, yes?

And if the Allied player does not yet see a German flag but instead sees a "?", his victory screen will show 75% vs 25% for the enemy. The Axis player will still see 50 - 50.

Is this correct?

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]</p>

[dalem]

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

Warning, Troll Alert.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=021402&p=

Now, back to the discussion.<hr></blockquote>

Oh, THAT guy. He was quite the -edited because I forgot this is not the cesspool, sorry- too.

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: dalem ]</p>

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Oh, THAT guy. He was quite the -edited because I forgot this is not the cesspool, sorry- too.

<hr></blockquote>

Oh yeah....Cauldron was this guy:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> I just have never heard of this thing - which is pretty remarkable concidering I have read 80% of the WW2 books ever written. <hr></blockquote>

Thanks for the tip, Slap. You must still have that Troll excel spreadsheet handy.

[Battlefront.com]

Michael,

Victory Level as displayed during the game simply represents controlled flag points, not casualties. Those are represented by Global Morale. The player is intentionally blind to enemy Global Morale and only knows the enemy Victory Level to the extent you are aware of enemy ownership. Unless, of course, Fog of War is off. So with Fog of War on you are only really sure about who you are doing from looking at the numbers in the interface.

Cauldron... coupled with your rather checkered past, your latest comments have officially landed you on the Final Warning list. Using an acronym along with a completely out of the blue flame of someone does not make it any better. Cross the line again and we will bid you farewell. Anybody seeing Cauldron violating this BBS's rules (again) can email matt@battlefront.com

Steve

[Binkie]

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

The magic of CM is: nothing is undefeatable. Well, maybe except the Jagdtiger. But I haven't faced them often enough to verify.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Don't bother with the gun damage, I had a veteran bazooka take out a moving veteran Jagdtiger at over 180 meters in a fiery explosion of death. IIRC it was a nice flat hit (because of the lob required at that range) on the back end of the side superstructure. That brave SOB also got a Puma in the same 60 seconds. I've got the movie to prove it, if anyone wants to see! :eek:

By the way, this gave him a cost to return ratio MUCH higher than what JasonC suggested is possible with zooks...