Flamethrowers

[Andreas]

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

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<hr></blockquote>

Thanks Steve.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

I knew I would trap myself when I mentioned the 'til the last men' thing.

Slapdragon Have you ever considered to stop using bad words? Even if some people don't deserve something better, it is not a must in public, and it turns interesting discussion into flamewars, and someone will lock them up. This would be sad

Binkie Well, as I said...no one lives forever. I assume I just had tough luck.

Steve Good to hear. Not all my prayers were wasted

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon Have you ever considered to stop using bad words? Even if some people don't deserve something better, it is not a must in public, and it turns interesting discussion into flamewars, and someone will lock them up. This would be sad <hr></blockquote>

Errr, Puff, what the heck are you talking about? A troll comes out, known for trolling. I point out his trolling to warn others he is not worth it, backing my statement with citations to where the troll has done this before. Which word did I use which was a curse word, and in what language is it a curse word?

I think you need to reread that last post of mine for content, rather than knee jerking to Cauldron's defence without knowing the history of his postings.

[Redwolf]

Hey, guys,

as the thread degenerates anyway, I'd like to ask people why they don't think that giving some units a knockout advantage is a good idea. This is not meant to beat a dead horse as Steve announced his opinion, I would rather like to understand why the other players think my logic is flacky.

My reasoning goes like this: If a unit crosses a certain about of overspecialization, while at the same time being very fragile, then you can express that as a kind of "virtual cost" when using the unit in a typical situation. It is like "statistically, how much points will it cost me to take that hill (if I take it at all)". If I find this cost prohibitive and I will not try to take that hill.

For the overspecialized and fragile units, you reach enourmous costs, given that they are expensive when knockout out, have a very high chance to get knocked out but on the other hand have only a small chance to meet a situation or an opponent where their strengths come to play.

So that is all fine you say, if you have fragile units, there is a certain threashold of "virtual cost" for that hill and you don't do.

And usually it works quite good. If I have Panthers, fine, if I have Pz IV you are vulnerable to some more units, but not that big a deal, if I have 234/3, the "virtual cost" is raised considerably. But if I have Nashorns, the cost suddenly "explodes".

There is a huge difference between taking a hill with 251/9 and Nashorns, because

- the Nashorn is extremly vulnerable (especially to .50cal fire)

- the 234/3 comes with a useful load of HE shells

- the 234/3 has a MG

- the 234/3 has a higher rate of fire

- the Nashorn costs almost twice as much

If you would draw a curve of the "virtual cost" of statistically taking the hill, you would see a slight rise from Panther to Pz IV, then a noticable bump for the 234/3, and then you jump right into the sky for the Nashorn.

That is why I think the overspecialized and fragile units disturb play. It is not because they are likely to be shot - that's OK and at purchase time you got the discount for that. It is because the actual risk in a typical game situation makes too much of a jump.

How can you lower the risk? By lowering the price. Can you lower the purchase price? No, because if somebody wants the long 88, he has to pay for it. You cannot make it cheap because people will flood the battlefield with it, and then numbers and the absense of enemy armor will make up for robustness and lack of ammo.

[Slapdragon]

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

Hey, guys,

as the thread degenerates anyway, I'd like to ask people why they don't think that giving some units a knockout advantage is a good idea. This is not meant to beat a dead horse as Steve announced his opinion, I would rather like to understand why the other players think my logic is flacky.

My reasoning goes like this: If a unit crosses a certain about of overspecialization, while at the same time being very fragile, then you can express that as a kind of "virtual cost" when using the unit in a typical situation. It is like "statistically, how much points will it cost me to take that hill (if I take it at all)". If I find this cost prohibitive and I will not try to take that hill.

For the overspecialized and fragile units, you reach enourmous costs, given that they are expensive when knockout out, have a very high chance to get knocked out but on the other hand have only a small chance to meet a situation or an opponent where their strengths come to play.

So that is all fine you say, if you have fragile units, there is a certain threashold of "virtual cost" for that hill and you don't do.

And usually it works quite good. If I have Panthers, fine, if I have Pz IV you are vulnerable to some more units, but not that big a deal, if I have 234/3, the "virtual cost" is raised considerably. But if I have Nashorns, the cost suddenly "explodes".

There is a huge difference between taking a hill with 251/9 and Nashorns, because

- the Nashorn is extremly vulnerable (especially to .50cal fire)

- the 234/3 comes with a useful load of HE shells

- the 234/3 has a MG

- the 234/3 has a higher rate of fire

- the Nashorn costs almost twice as much

If you would draw a curve of the "virtual cost" of statistically taking the hill, you would see a slight rise from Panther to Pz IV, then a noticable bump for the 234/3, and then you jump right into the sky for the Nashorn.

That is why I think the overspecialized and fragile units disturb play. It is not because they are likely to be shot - that's OK and at purchase time you got the discount for that. It is because the actual risk in a typical game situation makes too much of a jump.

How can you lower the risk? By lowering the price. Can you lower the purchase price? No, because if somebody wants the long 88, he has to pay for it. You cannot make it cheap because people will flood the battlefield with it, and then numbers and the absense of enemy armor will make up for robustness and lack of ammo.<hr></blockquote>

The only reason I would worry is because of the extremely difficult method you would need to go into to make a workable figure for this system. I wont bore you with the details of the type of testing each unit's cost would need in relation to every other, but it would need to be kind of extensive. That is why the regular price scale based on a complex formula is best, it is at least consistent.

Now, I do not doubt your idea is a good one, I just think you are underestimating the difficulty you will be facing setting the numbers in a meaningful way other than by "personal experience", a recipe for disaster.

[dalem]

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

Hey, guys,

as the thread degenerates anyway, I'd like to ask people why they don't think that giving some units a knockout advantage is a good idea.<hr></blockquote>

Well, for me personally, points are irrelevant. Obviously not during purchase time if I'm doing the purchasing, but as far as risk. If, to follow part of your example, I need to occupy a hill, and I can only do it with high point value yet thinly armored AFV, then I'd better make damn sure that the enemy's AT assets are dead, suppressed, or out of effective range.

I guess basically what I'm trying to say is that I never think of points when I'm actually playing the game, I think of what I have to do and what I have on hand to do it with. I'm assuming I'm under orders of some kind, and those orders aren't giving me leeway to 'take point X but don't risk certain units' (orders rarely got that specific). Heck, sometimes you do everything right and still lose.

You could have a Sherman Jumbo sitting pretty in the middle of the map being nice and impregnible and safe, and then with a little shift in position to provide long range support it hits a heretofore unseen AT mine and BLAM, it's immobile and Zip! the crew abandons it. So what, do I think that the Jumbo is somehow deserving of a lessened 'knockout point value'? The thing's a friggin' bunker on tracks.

Everything in the game is invulnerable to something under some conditions, and everything in the game is vulnerable to something under other conditions. That's why 'knockout points' don't make sense to me.

-dale

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

[Redwolf]

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

The only reason I would worry is because of the extremely difficult method you would need to go into to make a workable figure for this system.<hr></blockquote>

I want to restict it extremely few units. Everything remotely capatble of fighting on more tan one situation is not worth worrying about.

Units:

- flamethrower infantry teams

- thin open-top TDs without MGs and low HE load (Nashorn, Marder, Archer)

- mortar carrier halftracks

Jut make it 60% for all and I'd be happy. Kepp in mind that CMBB will see a lot more stuff of that kind.

I would also argue that transport capability -while appropriately expensive at purchase time- can make a victory point mess for similar reasons, I am thinking of a historical German german attack which historically used the APCs quite agressivly, but that leads to immedeate loss for the owner in CMBO. So as far as I am concerned unarmed or one-MG transporters could also be treated this way.

[Battlefront.com]

Ok folks, let's not let Trolls spoil our fun. That is, afterall, what they want to have happen. Small minded virtual terrorists in that regard

Anyhoo...

Redwolf, I think the key thing you aren't taking away from the previous discussions is the thing that points should not influence tactical or "strategic" use of your units. Instead, the inherent qualities of the unit should be utilized in order to yield the best results possible for the specific set of situations you as the player face in that single game at the specific time you need to make decisions. Or put another way... points don't matter DURING the game, only the units and their results do.

Think of things the other way around. If all you had was a cheap, vulnerable AT asset... would you throw it willy nilly into a situation where you expected it to die simply because it wouldn't adversely affect your score? I hope the answer here is no So why on Earth would you take the same asset, but with a slightly higher price, and feel like you had to do things differently? The price of the unit while in the game is totally irrelevant, and therefore your cost/benefit ratio of "taking a hill" is also irrelevant.

As the player you need to figure out how to take that hill in the best way possible with the forces you have vs. the forces the enemy has. Period. If you wind up losing weak but expensive units in the process, or strong and cheap ones, then you did not deploy them correctly, had bad luck, or a combo of the two. But the points had nothing to do with it.

Points don't kill units, enemy units or bad tactics do

Hmmm... OK... still worried you might not get it still. OK, here is another example...

Let us say that you have two same sized force in terms of points. One is built around Nashorns, the other around PzIVGs. You have some infantry and support weapons. The enemy has the same force in each of the two battles, which includes T34/85s. The objective is a hill in the center of the map. Now ask yourself this question:

"Would I approach the battle the same way with each of these two forces? If not, why?"

If your answer is "No, I would approach things differently", that is a step in the right direction. But if it is "No, because the Nashorns are badly priced for their capaiblities" you would get a Combat Mission Game Show "BZZZZZZZT Oh, sorry there Redwolf. So close, but wrong answer!" type response

Slapdragon is correct that even if your idea were something we agreed with, it would be next to impossible to implement since it is so highly variable. Take the same forces as above, give the Germans' control of the flag to start with, on a wide open map, with good concealment for the Nashorns... totally different ball of wax in terms of the Nashorn's possible impact on the game.

I think Dale also said some really good stuff.

Steve

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Slapdragon I mean things like 'these rather rare examples of extreme idiocy'. Or 'every half baked conversation' was also not very diplomatic. Or things that were said to a German child in another threat. Well, just my opinion. Keep in mind, enough lies were told about dragons by people like 'St' George - the truth is, we are honorable and friendly!

Redwolf I agree to Slap. The idea is interesting, but hard to realize. Not to mention the following discussions about 'justified values'!

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Jut make it 60% for all and I'd be happy. Kepp in mind that CMBB will see a lot more stuff of that kind.<hr></blockquote>

But this is totally arbitrary and completely unjustified according to many people's thinking. So you being happy or not is kinda irrelevant This is JasonC thinking here "If I want something then it must be right and everybody must therefore be made to play it the way I think it should be played, because I only complain about things I know are wrong even if nobody else agrees with me because I obviously only protest against the things which I see are wrong and therefore everybody should be happy with the knowledge that I am being fair and open minded about it" How was that?

Seriously, you think one way, apparently everybody else thinks the other. We have had a nice, rational debate about this issue but I think that try as you may you aren't going to change minds here. The reason is simple. You are thinking "points" and the others are thinking "value". The two are related, but points are fixed and value is variable.

The key to Combat Mission is being able to maximize value for the points spent. A weak force that remains intact and holding the victory locations is worth much more than a stronger one which pushed of with bloody losses. Since this is entirely possible, and seen quite often, why should the weak force be given some sort of magical and arbitrary bonus?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Kepp in mind that CMBB will see a lot more stuff of that kind.<hr></blockquote>

Which has nothing to do with anything

Steve

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Steve Let me jump back to something I said earlier. I understand that the importance of casualties can be negated with VLs in scenarios. But how about QBs?

IIRC, the Russian had more men and material on the battlefield, but there typical tactic were 'overrun' without any care about the casualties. Poor soldiers was send on attacks without arms, just to test the German defense. The expected lifetime of T-34 were less then two weeks. A saying was 'Monday build, wednesday on field, friday dead' (or similar).

I wonder how this will be solved. If the Soviet tanks would be just cheaper in pp, they would always outnumber the German tanks. This may be historic, but I think it won't work in CM.

Or was decided to ignore the Soviet majority, because the player is not expected to act so stupid like the Soviet leadership?

[dalem]

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

I would also argue that transport capability -while appropriately expensive at purchase time- can make a victory point mess for similar reasons, I am thinking of a historical German german attack which historically used the APCs quite agressivly, but that leads to immedeate loss for the owner in CMBO. So as far as I am concerned unarmed or one-MG transporters could also be treated this way.<hr></blockquote>

In the game I have seen some armored infantry assaults work, and most fail. The sources I've read about real life indicate that infantry dismounted before coming into range of serious AT opposition and it became a mutually-supporting type of effort, as a rule. And HTs are incredibly powerful, even in CM, if used correctly. Chopping their 'value' when they're done transporting things just doesn't fly in the face of their true utility, in my opinion and experience.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Hey Redwolf, just wanted to emphasize that I have found this discussion with you quite interesting. I disagree with your basis for change, but I do see where you are coming from. We all do not need to agree on everything, so discussions like this are still good to have.

Puff, at the tactical level the Soviets did not always win with superior numbers. Quite the contrary in fact. Many accounts of "human waves" show that it generally took several of these (i.e. several CM sized battles) to wear down the German defences enough to overrun them. The instances where the Soviets just rolled over the Germans aren't interesting from a tactical standpoint (especially the ones involving hours of artillery prep fire!), so they are not really of concern since there is no real point to play them in the first place.

Will the Soviets be able to have a numerical advantage even in even point games? Yes, quite likely in fact. Will their overall firepower also be greater than the German's sometimes? Sure. But when you see the new simulation of command and control you will understand why it was that such forces, in real life, were often defeated by smaller German forces.

So far we have seen no problems with balancing in Quick Battles in regards to victory points. We'll keep an eye on it, but I honestly don't predict changes will be necessary.

Steve

[Priest]

Lets see here....

Lets start way back in the early pages and start counting....

1 post

2 post

3 post

4 post

5......post

6..........POST!!!!

OH IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY POSTS!!!!

(imitating certain posters on this thread)

In the is thread alone BTS has answered and debated an issue with it's players. That alone just beat out any other game company I know of concerning posts about games when cross-referenced with how much control that rep has with the game company. Now in certain conditions Steve is less valuable so we can ignore him in those conditions....

(end imitation)

Aaaaaaaah! Shut your mouth!

I just want to take time to thank Steve and Charles and Matt and Kwazy for all of the posts and time spent answering our question and in some cases re-answering our questions and in sooooome case re-re-answering our questions.

Thanks Guys!

(please excuse the very THE ROCK like saying used above, WWF Smackdown was on last nite and I am experiencing some risidual!)

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

[Battlefront.com]

Dale, good points there. It is true that mounted infantry, be them on horse, truck, or APC generally dismounted in a safe location prior to coming under directed and heavy enemy fire. The infantry would then advance under the cover of each other and whatever support weapons were available.

The advantage of APCs is that they are a mobile, armored MG (or light gun in some cases) which can be used to keep the enemy's heads down while the infantry advances. If the APCs aren't peppered by AT fire (which is a tactical blunder!) then they are real bastards to deal with. I have had many great attacks using APCs in this way. In fact, some of my best ones were with Last Defence, the Demo scenario.

Steve

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

But when you see the new simulation of command and control you will understand why it was that such forces, in real life, were often defeated by smaller German forces. <hr></blockquote>

Well, that's what I meant . I just wanted to express HOW CURIOUS I AM and how mad I'm getting while I wait for my new favorite toy

Needless to say that I can't discuss this issue before I have seen the new C&C

[Michael Dorosh]

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

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.

Steve<hr></blockquote>

I must be more unclear on this concept than I thought. I just reread the manual and couldn't find anything on scores. I am playing Villiers Fossard with Captain Wacky and his point score has gradually risen from 0 to 24%, despite the fact that not once has one of the flags been in question or even in his possession.

I assumed that if the flag was German, there was "no contest" so to speak. All the flags have been German for the entire course of the game. How then, does the American player have 24 percent of the score?

[dalem]

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

The advantage of APCs is that they are a mobile, armored MG (or light gun in some cases) which can be used to keep the enemy's heads down while the infantry advances. If the APCs aren't peppered by AT fire (which is a tactical blunder!) then they are real bastards to deal with. I have had many great attacks using APCs in this way. In fact, some of my best ones were with Last Defence, the Demo scenario.

Steve

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<hr></blockquote>

Personally I have had greatest success holding them until the ending stages of a battle. Winning or losing, it's usually a good thing to be able to trot out 3 or 4 armored MG platforms during the last 5 turns or so. Sometimes they're the only things left with any ammo.

I still haven't mastered the 'shock attack' with them though...

-dale

[Priest]

I love the MG toting HTs. When a platoon or two engages the enemy infantry and I am fairly sure that not AT assets are about I swing around a couple of HTs at the safest possible distance and open up.

That tactics has quite an effect.

The best two uses I have seen so far have been about 8 British M5 HTs and a platoon holding off about two COY of German PzrGren troops trying to advance.

The other is 2 mmg carriers and a 25pdr spotter taking out a platoon of infantry. Most of the casualties were from the mmg carriers, the artillery kept them pinned nicely though!

Just my input!

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

I assumed that if the flag was German, there was "no contest" so to speak. All the flags have been German for the entire course of the game. How then, does the American player have 24 percent of the score?<hr></blockquote>

I agree, Steve must be wrong again ! I always thought that the vicotry, while the battle is running, is calculated by using

a) the known VLs

the known (+ estimated?) enemy casualties

c) the know own casualties

[Redwolf]

Thanks for the replies, I appreciate the discussion. Certainly better than a style flamefest.

You are thinking much more in terms of taking the hill, the risk of failing to do so and maybe even in losses - but only as losses in combat power.

I am thinking in terms of what is the projected losses, and losses in victory points (which as some random point in some semi-random game may not reflect to not combat effectivity anymore). And I make that calculation even and especially if I assume that I will succeed in taking the hill. At that point, I might still prefer to sit on my butt even if I estimated a 90% chance of taking the hill, if I have to use some units that are expensive and fragile. But why are they expensive? Because of the purchase price (even if we are in a scenario) the high price is based on some theoretical combat power. But now it is backfiring twice, once in the chance of taking the hill and then in point losses even in the success case.

Your views (of the identity of purchase and victory point price) are perfectly justified if you follow the reasoning in my first paragraph and not the one in the second. But the second's behaviour is in the game and determines victory level (and hence even victory yes/no).

Please don't bash me playing for points. I think the unbalanced tournament example I gave above clearly show that victory level (as opposed to victory yes/no) can matter for historical play. In the unbalanced scenario case you even getter a better reflection of history.

[Redwolf]

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

I agree, Steve must be wrong again ! I always thought that the vicotry, while the battle is running, is calculated by using

a) the known VLs

the known (+ estimated?) enemy casualties

c) the know own casualties<hr></blockquote>

Steve is just testing whether you pay attention

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Steve is just testing whether you pay attention <hr></blockquote>

This is seriously not funny anymore.

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 or not.

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

[Redwolf]

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

This is seriously not funny anymore.

<hr></blockquote>

Hey easy, Steve isn't our local lexicon.

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

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.

<hr></blockquote>

Yes, but only basically. Only those knockout points you observed directly are shown by the in-game display. Since you always have points from squad men you killed before they were fully identified or you hit unobserved peope with indirect fire, you miss them, both in the kill display and in the victory level display.

Only after FOW is lifted, the display is corrected. It should always be in your favour since you know you own casualities precisely during the game. But you can never use the in-game victory level display for anything precise.

And then there is the split-squad bug, of course, which messes things up because it is the only event in CMBO were units they counted as dead are revived and hence cause a drop in the opponent's knockout point count.

[dalem]

Well, redwolf, I have to agree with you that, if one is playing for points, then your line of reasoning is not unprofitable. I still think it's unworkable in a 'game mechanics' sense, as Slappy and Steve have pointed out, but for points, you have a point.

(And for those keeping score I just tried a quick 'shock assault' on the AI with a 'proper' U.S. Armored Infantry company (3 platoons, 12 HTs or so and a dash of support) and got hammered by the AI. Lesson learned: suppression suppression suppression, against those naughty FJs.)

-dale