Flamethrowers

[Redwolf]

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

<hr></blockquote>

Me too, I love that too.

If I charge the hill with one Pz IV with 5 251/1 APCs and two platoons (on foot of course) for anti-Bazooka cover fire and suddently three .50cal pop up and kill all the Halftracks, that is exactly what is supposed to happen. The Pz IV and infantry kill the .50cals, so I have taken the hill with the loss of five halftracks because I underestimated the opposition. Perfect. Are the losses in combat power fair? Yes, of course.

But what about the losses in victory points? Is it good (as in "good for gameplay") that I just lost 260 points, plus crew casualities? Is it fair that the halftracks cost me 260 points when I bought them? Yes, because they provide transport capability that can make quite a difference in a game that I assume might envolve. But now? 260 points, the price of three StuGs?

Think of reality. I know prices are not based on reality, but combat results should be. Is the fragile stuff I talk about worth the CMBO purchase price when you evaluate the combat outcome later?

I'm leaving for a trip, so don't expect quick replies.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

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.<hr></blockquote>

Thank you

Interesting bit about the split squad "bug"; not sure I understand this bug as you have mentioned it a couple of times now, but that's fine. It is good to have this basic idea of how things work in mind; the manual really doesn't say much and there are other ways to interpret the percentages given on the screen - which is obviously what I have been doing.

Glad to hear the CMBB manual will be less ambiguous.

[Berlichtingen]

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

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.<hr></blockquote>

Why wouldn't it work? The T-34 was a revolutionary design when it came out, but it has some very seroius flaws. We have been told that CMBB will include C&C for tanks... don't you think that might be a leveling factor? Think about it before CMBO did you think the Panther was a god like tank and Shermans were pieces of crap? Did the opinion change after you played for awhile. Wait until you actually play CMBB before assuming previous misconceptions

[Priest]

Does it really matter?

When I whip someones ass (happens often) or get my ass whipped (happens more than often) I just know. I zip right past the score page. I rarely if ever look at the map.

Now that is what I do and I understand that it does matter to others, but as Steve already said, disregarding the victory levels, no one has really ever had a problem with scoring. No one has lost and said, "Damn I know I won that one big time!".

If you did exactly know what the screen "score" meant would you change your tactics? I wouldn't. The whole point of the game is that you are in command not some relative score or scoring system. If I am "ahead on points" in the last 5 turns but launch an attack towards a VL to acheive an even greater "victory level" and then lose 5 tanks and a platoon and end up losing then that is my fault, i made a bad tactical decision. The scoring system works. How it works is really irrelavent unless it is not working, but it is.

Just my thoughts.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Does it really matter?

When I whip someones ass (happens often) or get my ass whipped (happens more than often) I just know. I zip right past the score page. I rarely if ever look at the map.

Now that is what blah blah

Just my thoughts.<hr></blockquote>

Had you actually read the majority of the discussion, you would have noticed the references to scenario design. If you have some input on that front, feel free. Otherwise, I couldn't care less what you do or don't do while playing CM.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Priest Good points. I must confess, I play to win. Competetition is fun. Victory is joy. From one point of view I hate this bean counting, but on the other hand it is necessary to know where you stand and if a risk is worth the price you might have to pay. Points are maybe not the best way, but as I already said, I can't find a better one - the current system simply works.

An example - at the beginning of a battle I ran into a bulk of tanks, they completly destroyed my left flank, made a lot of points and took two VLs.

In the center I took also two VLs, and destroyed a minor infantry force, but Ilost most of my tanks and I can not attack with my infantry over the open (snow) terrain. In CM terms the battle was lost for me (I guess a minor). In reality, we both would try to get support and attack the opponent with superior forces. This would of course need more time then the CM battle offers, so in princip, the battle would simply stop now. But in game, my opponent tried an attack, I had some luck and now he is also out of tanks, must advance over open snow terrain and he gets a bloody nose. With some more luck, the battle will now end as minor for me. So it's like in real life. He underestimated a risk, now he must pay for it .

Berlichingen I can't rate the C&C before I have seen how it works and the effects it will cause, so please excuse that I don't answer that question . I don't expect missconceptions, I'm just curious how they solved this question - without doubts, the Russian casualties were extreme, IIRC they lost 10-12 Million soldiers, Germany on all fronts 'only' 3-4 Million.

I still think that the (plain) Sherman is a piece of crap , and the Panther is godlike compared to it, especially since I killed 20 Shermans with 4 Panthers .

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

Watch your tone. You are not the Thought Police here on this BBS. If Priest wishes to make a point, then he is welcome to do so. If you do not care about what he has to say, then don't read it. And certainly do not go out of your way to slam him just because YOU think what he says is irrelevant. Opinions will differ, and I am one of those who differs with your opinion.

I think much of this conversation, contrary to your opinion, has been focused on point counting. Not for scenario design, but for figuring out how to best win while in a battle based on points while in a game (ladder or otherwise). Priest's comments are ones I totally share, and that is winning and losing are not based on if one has 52 points or 53 points. Like Priest, I breeze past the final tally screen and just go and look at what units are left. I don't care what the score says, although I love seeing that I have won a Decisive Vicotry

Steve

[Priest]

Nevermind, and thanks Steve.

Ken

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

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

Hey easy, Steve isn't our local lexicon.<hr></blockquote>

He is not??? Damned, I thought he must pay a beer when he is wrong for the third time .

[Berlichtingen]

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

Berlichingen I can't rate the C&C before I have seen how it works and the effects it will cause, so please excuse that I don't answer that question . I don't expect missconceptions, I'm just curious how they solved this question - without doubts, the Russian casualties were extreme, IIRC they lost 10-12 Million soldiers, Germany on all fronts 'only' 3-4 Million.<hr></blockquote>

My point is that until we see it we can not know what CMBB will be like, and we know from long experience that Steve and company aren't going to tell us It seems to me that with their track record, BTS will probably get it right

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Something that has been completly ignored yet are victory conditions in Operations. We have no VL flags there (why not??), but it doesn't seem to be a simple rate of casualities like in a scneario without flags. Has someone already figured out how it works?

[Michael Dorosh]

Yes, you are correct Steve, I thought about editing that post out after the fact. Anyway, my apologies to Priest, I was not trying to infer my opinion is worth more than his or anyone else's.

But next time, Steve, perhaps I won't be so frustrated if you would actually take a minute to think over your responses. You have to admit that as one of the designers of the game, your answers are going to have much more weight than anyone else's. I had a very simple question to which I got a bunch of different answers, and yours apparently was incorrect (yes?). I realize that you are busy with CMBB - but if that is the case, maybe it best you not give answers to questions about CMBO that you are not sure of? There was a similar thread running parallel to this one floating similar misinformation about victory levels, etc., with even more red herrings being thrown out.

Again, I'm not a card counter nor a ladder player, but since you have made those two funny numbers accessible throughout the game I was only trying to figure out how they are computed. They seem to have a lot of importance for some people, and I'm pretty sure they were included for a reason (no?)

Thanks to all for their thoughts.

[Battlefront.com]

Michael,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Yes, you are correct Steve, I thought about editing that post out after the fact. Anyway, my apologies to Priest, I was not trying to infer my opinion is worth more than his or anyone else's.<hr></blockquote>

Thanks. Good to see.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>But next time, Steve, perhaps I won't be so frustrated if you would actually take a minute to think over your responses.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, I have taken hours to think over all my responses here in total. Unfortunately, I already feel I need to get myself back to other things. But the real problem lies in that I haven't thought about this aspect of the game in well over a year as it makes no difference to me personally. Since the manual is obviously lacking in a big way (something we WILL fix for CMBB, trust me on that!) I have to bug Charles. Which I did for much of the stuff I posted. Now we are talking about the two of us dropping everything we are doing to answer more questions.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>You have to admit that as one of the designers of the game, your answers are going to have much more weight than anyone else's. I had a very simple question to which I got a bunch of different answers, and yours apparently was incorrect (yes?).<hr></blockquote>

I understand the confusion and am sorry for it. However, my other option is to not answer at all, which might technically be better but perhaps not apreciated.

As far as my last answer being incorrect or not, I am still awaiting a response from Charles to see if that is the case. I don't want to muddy the waters any more than they are. I had done a quick test to see if my memory was correct about what the "victory" count represented and, as far as I could see, I am not incorrect as such. However, I think there is something else going on with that number other than what anybody has said thus far. And that would account for the difference. When Charles lets me know I'll let you all know

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>They seem to have a lot of importance for some people, and I'm pretty sure they were included for a reason (no?)<hr></blockquote>

Yes, they are valuable for sure. However, they are there as an indication of how well you are doing, which in my opinion is plainly obvious by looking at the map and having followed the action as the game has progressed. This is why I do not bother with either the "Victory" number or the numbers at the end of the battle. I know where I stand, like a real commander, by direct observation.

The numbers are nothing but a validation of that and therefore I don't personally care how they are arrived at because I have never seen them at odds with what I have observed directly. So I guess for the last year and a half or so I have never thought about how they are generated because I trust that they are doing their job and do not need to know more than that.

Steve

[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Michael Dorosh]

Understood, Steve, and I am sure Charles has better things to do. Anyway, Redwolf did provide an answer I'm happy with, and who knows - perhaps the manual to CMBB may even cast some light on stuff in the "old" game, CMBO. As with the others, I'd prefer CMBB come out that much sooner than continue discussion on CMBO - though we do appreciate when you make an appearance.

Now, it's Saturday - go out and do something fun. I will attempt the same.

[Michael Dorosh]

Actually, in all seriousness - I know the design of the website and CMHQ have been bones of contention as well, and time is lacking to work on them - but a really good FAQ about questions like these that come up and up again and again might be the answer - at least with regards to areas you feel the rulebook to be deficient.

I do understand your reluctance to release an online version of the manual, but perhaps something worth thinking about - and I am sure that if Manx/Madmatt aren't able to commit time to it - you would find plenty of volunteers on the board who are compiling FAQs already (russelmz, Panzer Leader, et al) who could even provide HTML pages for you. I'd be willing to so volunteer as well to produce FAQ pages for the BTS, or CMHQ, sites.

[JasonC]

Seems the thread has been burgeoning since my last, but mostly on side topics. The best one and the one I think merits reply was from Andrew Hedges back on page 7. Yes, FTs are overpriced for QBs, and I am happy to hear it acknowledged by someone. Yes, there are design goals the FT pricing would be compatible with, but no, scenario pricing isn't one of them.

The design goal the present FT pricing furthers is making them scarce in QBs, making them disappear, fade into the background, go away. This is a perfectly reasonable design goal, if intentional. BTS did away with WP because other games showed it is overused as an uberweapon. It was really used, but BTS chose not to include it because it might lead to ahistorical tactics. If they had little confidence in their fire modeling in general (as simplified and abstract, I mean - e.g. instant spread to a building or tile, etc), this was particularly sensible. Some may prefer the present FT pricing because they just don't want anybody using them. That isn't the official reason, but some might support the present pricing (presumably arrived at by some abstract calculation skewed by high blast value) anyway. Ideally, fire would be made rarer or have less extreme effects instead, but in a rough and ready way a minor weakness in modeling can be partially masked by pricing incentives that make "stress" on some part of the model rare.

As for the alleged particular urban scenarios in which FTs are well worth their price, I remain a skeptic about it as things stand, because SMGs (perhaps due to overmodeling, a quibble) can do block clearing by small arms firepower and fire-ascendency, snowballing suppression effects. Arguably the level of protection buildings provide vs. small arms should vary more, to make this less the case, and make grenades (especially) as well as FTs more effective in block clearing and at fighting inside buildings. Building interior LOS lines are simplified in CMBO, in a way that reduces the need for area fire effects in urban fighting.

As things are now, the protection buildings afford plateaus at a level still quite vunerable to automatic weapons FP applied at ranges at or under FT maximum range. Which it seems to me makes the more survivable and reliable "lots of automatics" route dominant over the FTs for buildings idea. And I still haven't found someone willing to try to prove I'm wrong about this, and beat my SMGs with his FTs on any city map he likes. FTs might also have firestarting uses, to deny particularly important scarce bits of cover, on some maps. But the firestarting use is ahistorical to begin with, because realistically a zippo could do what it takes an FT to do in CMBO.

In addition to an allegation about particular scenarios, which was really advanced by others and just noticed and accepted by Andrew, he was however making a more global point about the different contexts for pricing. This is a clever idea, but doesn't stand up much under scrutiny. Because pricing does matter more for QBs than for other situations. Obviously, a scenario designer can adopt whatever attitude toward balance issues he likes, and if he thinks wire or FTs or halftracks should be "cheaper", he can just leave the points odds at a different level, adding more of such items to either or both sides. So points are irrelevant to scenarios for balance.

They still matter for knock outs in scenarios, but there the scenario designer has several additional tools that QBs do not provide. He can bump a global advantage level, or place one additional small flag where it is relatively easy or hard for side A or B to hold at the end. He can also tweak the force levels on either side by small increments - individual squads or teams - to adjust smaller differences in available or likely VPs. Balancing the victory outcomes for any scenario, as anyone who has gone through any degree of playtesting of his own scenario, is an empirical matter decided by feedback anyway. It is certainly not hardwired into the BTS-provided pricing system.

And to the extent that a residual of in-scenario effect remains from the pricing system, it is a curious one to *favor* when it comes to FTs. Because their high value, relative to their usual battlefield effectiveness (which Andrew admits in the case of QBs), no longer has any play balance importance in a scenario. Instead of reflecting a high potential blast, it confers some high preservation value to FT teams, since only the knock-out issue remains. FTs are thus "less expendable" for their fighting power. For just 4 men using common pieces of equipment definitely meant for close assault, this is a rather perverse thing to favor. Compared to the FTs costing 25 pts each, "Ooh, I better protect these 4 guys" is the only message, which is not at all what FTs were intended for.

You see, it does not matter that FTs are more combat-effective in certain scenario-only situations, because pricing is not about combat-effectiveness in scenario situations - it is only about knock-out value. Pricing is about combat effectiveness only in QBs, because only there is the player under a budget contrainst in force selection, forced e.g. to give up 3 schrecks or 5 bazookas if he takes 2 FTs. Global force levels and global victory conditions are both controlled by other factors in scenarios, not by the pricing system. Only particular issues like "would it be worth losing this FT team for a chance at that objective?" remain, and there the sole impact of the extra 50% of FT value is to encourage more cautious, protective use of them. Since the only real reason to preserve them (compared to men in another unit, say) was to use them for such close assault cases, this is an effect is a silly direction (though typically a minor one).

The bottom line is that no scenario would be seriously harmed by having FTs present in them cost 25 pts by the BTS set price system. It would not effect global victory balance because the designer can flip a few knobs and override any such effect in his particular scenario, at will. Prices do not need to reflect context-dependent combat power in scenarios, because scenarios are not play-balanced by the price system alone. Pricing has a larger role to fufill in QBs than in scenarios, where its effects are minor and readily "tweaked" by the designer. It is not an arbitrary subjective preference that prices matter more for QBs, it is simply a design fact. Scenario designers have greater freedom from the price system, so it doesn't need to be right for them. (Modeling does, certainly, but not the prices).

When group A has to care about issue X and group B need not care about it, in the sense that its effects on them are overridden by costly voluntary choices still left open to them, more people are accomodated by listening to group A than B or both combined, on issue X. Concretely, scenario designers needn't care a whit whether FTs cost 25 or 37 pts, and can add or not add them as they wish, and must tweak scenario balance by empirical feedback in either case. They are not bound by the price system in any serious way. Indeed, the whole procedure of using a 3rd party designer to draw up the forces for a match is one work-around for prices one doesn't think are sound.

Where Andrew is on sounder ground is his notion that pricing systems can do other things even in QBs than balance the combat power available to both sides, in them. It can also serve to encourage particular approachs and discourage others, to mask game engine weaknesses or to fit a particular conception of how the participants actually fought. It can serve to create national skews in game balance, or to purposefully make reliance on one arm or another more successful for nationality A compared to nationality B. Which is as much as to say, the pricing system can be used to unbalance QBs in particular ways, instead of balancing them. It can do this intentionally or unintentionally.

The test of balance remains the formula "you cut, I choose". All such intentional or unintentional uses of the pricing system for ends tangential to play balance create incentives to do things one way rather than another, and thereby create gains and shortfalls in balance terms for complying or bucking the incentives. There is a large difference, however, between wanting the other guy stuck with the costs of bucking and being willing to bear them oneself. Obviously, there are a lot more side effects of pricing one might desire in the former case than in the latter.

People who don't want to take FTs themselves or don't care, have no problem with others being forced to overpay for them. People who do want to take SMGs themselves have no problem with underpaying for them. You may say they simply want to achieve other ends with the pricing system, if you like. I simply offer them the chance to stand in the shoes they wish on others, and don't listen to their "philosophy" about the others "purposes" of their prefered prices if they decline. To me their "philosophy" in the matter is obvious - they want to cut and then choose.

[Battlefront.com]

Michael,

We are working on the website, but we aren't likely to do anything by way of a FAQ at this point. However, you are correct that the new manual will likely throw some light backwards on things in CMBO.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Now, it's Saturday - go out and do something fun. I will attempt the same.<hr></blockquote>

Well, I don't know about you but I did get out and started to have some fun. Felled two very large dying ash trees for Spring firewood. Probably get a full cord out of the two. After making two perfect, and in one case extremely difficult, falls I got my trusty Bombadier tracked skidder (which I just found sucks in 2 foot snow compared to my Weasel) bellied on one of the trees as I tried to pass over the bloody thing. A combo of the track design and lack of a low gear range really messed me up as it caused me to slip off and turn 60 deg in the wrong direction. So tomorrow I have to go chain a log to the tracks like the tankers do and get the friggin thing off the tree.

Well, at least half the afternoon was fun

Jason... what can I say... I hear you but just don't agree. You have your (strong) opinions and we have ours. I think our track record is pretty good in terms of getting things right and correcting the things which are wrong, so I am satisfied that sticking to our way is not such a bad idea.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Hmph. American ingenuity wins out over French-Canadian eh?

I went to the hobby shop to look for Italian-armour model kits for the Battlefront model contest. Then I realized that having fun invariably costs money so I came straight home and slept instead.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Steve I hope you Charles has not forgotten the map generator bug that creates such funny roads

[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

[Andreas]

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

Steve I hope you Charles has not forgotten the map generator bug that creates such funny roads

<hr></blockquote>

Isn't that the US suburbia mod, just without the houses with garage and the Rock Hudson face on the soldiers?

[Priest]

Just to chime in

NP Micheal it is all good!

[SuperTed]

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

...Well, I don't know about you but I did get out and started to have some fun. Felled two very large dying ash trees for Spring firewood. Probably get a full cord out of the two. After making two perfect, and in one case extremely difficult, falls I got my trusty Bombadier tracked skidder (which I just found sucks in 2 foot snow compared to my Weasel) bellied on one of the trees as I tried to pass over the bloody thing. A combo of the track design and lack of a low gear range really messed me up as it caused me to slip off and turn 60 deg in the wrong direction. So tomorrow I have to go chain a log to the tracks like the tankers do and get the friggin thing off the tree.

Well, at least half the afternoon was fun ...

Steve<hr></blockquote>

Steve,

Uh, how can I put this nicely...YOU CALL THAT FUN?! You really need to get out more (and I don't mean out in the words, for crying out loud).

[Slapdragon]

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

Just to chime in

NP Micheal it is all good!<hr></blockquote>

Preist,

I personally think you should join the Magenta Onion on the Blue side so you can give Dorosh a nice drubbing. I can personnally guarantee that you face him in battle, since I am god.

[Charlie Rock]

Howdy,

As a disclaimer, I don't play that much in scenarios where I sweat the numbers and point costs if things go boom and die. Having said that, the current system is better than the one proposed, for the following reason:

Many of the more fragile, high cost units that are referred to are so for a reason. For example, a wirblewind, an SP 150mm, flamethrowers, etc. have great ability to do harm, but cost a lot and are sorta fragile.

If you are for changing the point systems it is because you like the surgeon approach, (Nurse, scalpel) where you buy specialized stuff that is there because it useful for specialized situations.

One reason it might cost you so much is because in the real world, you have to go to your boss, beg, borrow, and steal the stuff, and if you lose it he will be mighty upset.

Example: infantry, medium tanks, FOs, etc. are very common in the front lines. A hummel is not. A hummel, and a priest for that matter, were not designed to be "on the board", but back firing as artillery. A wirblewind's primary purpose was to fight jabos. If you lost all your AA assets to bazookas while firing up dismounts and halftracks than tomorrow when the P47s come you'll be sorry. If you can convince your brigade commander to let you use them in the front lines, OK. But don't lose em.

There is another point that the game can't replicate. The little pixel guy who mans the hummel, priest, wirblewind, AA gun, etc. was trained in how to do a job, be it lob shells, shoot down aircraft, whatever. Realistically, they would not be too thrilled to be in the lines in the first place, would be doing a task they were not trained for, and probably would not be to inspired by the infantry or tanker they just met. A hodgepodge of flamethrower crews, hummels, wirbleinds, etc. is probably the sort of bunch who would not fight nearly as effectively in a synchronized manner as say, a rifle company and tank company who habitually worked together.

Antiaircraft guys and field artillerymen are good at many things. Tangling with tanks and infantry is not their number one priority, and they would prefer not to, unless the situation is desperate enough. This is why the number one casualty sufferer is the infantry. Tank crews are back aways, and it is possible for a unit to be pulled out of the line with grievous infantry losses, but intact AA and FA and EN formations. As armies train replacements in prediction of known and forecast losses, corps or army won't be swamped with a big pool of, say, flamethrower and wirblewind crews. Tank drivers and riflemen, OK.

Having said all that, a realistic way to portray this reality would be to take all these other branches and penalize them with green or conscript ratings. Or, conversley, make the cost more, so to get the specialty equipment in the scenario you might force their experience down to cheapen them. If you can use your heterogeneous force to beat an opponent who comes to the party with tanks and regular line doggies, OK. But if the flag ownership at the end is so close points matter, tie goes to the guy who has a force structure that is more likely to really work for real and brought fewer fragile trick units that had other things they should have been doing to support the war.

Lastly, I'm pretty impressed that BTS is as involved with the dialogue as much as they are. It's cool to hear the reason behind the way the game is designed the way it is, methinks.

[Priest]

Hehe thanks for the invite SlapDragon but I must refuse at this time

I am really busy with another CMBO project that requires my complete attention.

Thanks though!