Flamethrowers

[Battlefront.com]

OK, going TOTALLY off topic here...

Michael wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Hmph. American ingenuity wins out over French-Canadian eh?<hr></blockquote>

Yup. The Bombadier track/suspension design has been around since the 1930s, so when the US Army was looking for an over snow vehicle after the war started they repeatedly tested examples from many companies, including several models from Bombadier. But they were repeatedly rejected then and after the war. The problem, which I can now plainly see, is that the Bombadier doesn't so much float on the snow as it burrows through it. Huge difference, especially when trying to transport a couple thousand pounds of equipment.

Don't get me wrong... the Bombadier has a lot of really positive things going for it. Why else would I own one? The design is so good that it is still in production basically unchanged for 70 years. But compared to the Weasel, which is considered by many to be the finest over snow vehicle ever made, it just isn't as good in deep snow.

SuperTed... I consider being out in the woods, work or play, to be the best form of fun and relaxation. However, getting a vehicle unbellied is not exactly what I like to do

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Charlie,

Good points, all of them. In CMBB we will be pricing things based on the "begging" or "luck" factor which so influences how and when the less common stuff comes onto the battlefield in the first place. This is an optional feature, but one that I and many others will never play without.

One thing that I have not mentioned in this thread is that some units were priced a little higher because the straight math did have them come out to be too cheap vs. their capability. In real life the limiting factor on use would be "rarity", but there is no explicite system in CMBO to handle this. So the only thing we could do was add a little more to the price so they could be a little more in balance with the costs of other, more common units. We in fact tweaked a couple of prices in patches upwards because people asked for them to be changed.

The reasoning is that if something is generally pretty effective, but priced quite low (most likely do to fragility), then they will appear on the battlefield more frequently than they should, thus unbalancing the game (potentially). There are very few units that we did this to, but I think the FT was likely one of them. The Puma was another and I think the .50cal Jeep was messed around with too.

Bottom line is that there needs to be two pricing systems; one for base cost and one for opportunity (rarity) cost. CMBO only had one to work with so we did what we could with it. CMBB fixes this by having a dual system. Not just for individual units, like FTs, but for formations, like a Pioneer Battalion or Company. So not only will you be less likely to see independent FTs running around, but Pionners and other specialists will be less likely to be seen. This extends all the way to things like Waffen SS vs. Heer and is dependent on the Region being fought in.

The system is quite deep and complicated, yet simplistic in what it does for the game. And that is to make the unit mixes much more realistic than they are without Rarity on (optional in CMBB, only way to play in CMBO). We are sure you guys will love it, or complain and play without Rarity on Either way, everybody should be happy. Heck, maybe even Jason too!

Steve

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[JasonC]

I'm sure the rariety system will be spiffy. But if I had my druthers I'd want another global work around for the perennial pricing issues, in the following form. Imagine there is a screen for price adjustments, with +10%, +25% (or 33), +33% (or 50) settings perhaps, and likewise -10%, -25%, -33%. At the set up stage, if a "custom conditions" option is choosen for a given QB. OK?

Then, the player who starts up the scenario fills out this screen, which includes terrain type, types of forces on each side (heer vs. guards or security vs. partisans or whatever they are), quality levels, weather - all the same things filled out now. But in addition, he can pick "adjust prices" or "use default prices". If he adjusts prices, he can go through them for either side and tweak each one he wants. It'd be great if the same was also possible for starting ammo levels.

Then, here is the kicker. *After* the first player has filled all this out, before any set up phase he is prompted to mail it (or TCP it) to his opponent. The opponent gets to see all the adjustments made, and all the game conditions. He cannot revise them. But then he, the second player, chooses *which side* he will play. This sets the sides and the prices (ammo, terrain, etc). The second player then makes his force selections using the revised prices. He then mails back to the first who makes his, again using the price revisions (his own), but on the side left to him by the second player. Off the game goes normally.

Thus, the player who starts a "custom setting" QB gets to "cut" the prices. The player who does not start it gets to "choose" the side he will play, under the prices and conditions set by his opponent. His ability to choose either side removes the incentive to lowball prices on one side. All of this can be bypassed at will by just not picking the "custom" option, or by picking it but the first player choosing to leave the prices alone.

Any merit to this idea? I realize it may be late for such a suggestion, but I think it might help address such issues. The point is to kick the complaints back into the players' laps and let them settle such things themselves - but under the "you cut I choose" fairness formula.

The different price adjustments are in effect rariety levels. So this could just be a fourth rariety option - none, historical, random, and custom. If you pick custom then the first player sets the rariety levels. They might be in the same categories as for "random", if any subcategories are used. The only difference would be the player picks the level "very common, rare" whatever, instead of the random number generator.

Then the programming issue would just be how to flip the sides. Perhaps set a flag if custom rariety is picked, which shows that the ordinary force selection for the first side, which would otherwise come next, has been "delayed". Then go to the send file prompt. When it arrives, reading this flag brings up the rariety changes and a "switch sides? Yes or No?" option for the second player. If he says yes then you switch them, if not you don't. In either case you reset the flag. And now the first force selection occurs normally, and everything after flows like an ordinary game.

For what it is worth...

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: JasonC ]</p>

[Slapdragon]

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

I know what you mean. I have another project also on the burner (lots of audio recording for that one). This one is too neat to pass up though.

Well, we are planning a second one when CM:BB is released. Hopefully your project will be done by then and we can invite you then.

[Redwolf]

May be a user-overwritable price system would in fact make sense to make people like me and Jason to shut up? As stated previously, I am stricktly against any scheme to make combat resulution user-configurable (as that will mess up the player community big time). But for the prices I see some indication that it might even work.

I am thinking of the person setting up a game entering a URL where a text file with three colmns is stored, first unit to chance, then purchase price, then knockout value. You only list units you want to chance, default fallback is BTS value. Some people will make such lists and put them on the web, a player pair can choose after agreeing which one.

Why do I think that works? Because people right now do the same thing with heavy rule lists that they choose from. Fionn rules and much more, like how many M8 HMC or Wasps and how many SMG platoons max, for all the stuff people ever complainged about you find an optinal rule.

Yes I know, most people in this thread roll their eyes right now other the Quickbattle laddergamers. The important point here is that it works, community-wise. On the tournamenthouse ladder, which I think is considered the kingdom of cherry-picking, I have yet to see a pair of players not agreeing to a set of rules. They do not spend endless time bitching about the sense of a rule.

I expect that they will be able to negotiate one of many pricing schemes available on the WWW quickly. All other rule complications in effect right now (and they take quite some IRC time to iron out) will no longer be needed. So overall, I think it will be a win for player time and -more important- I think that people will waste fewer, not more, time bitching over prices or other limitation mechanisms on this forum or other channels.

Scenario designers should be able to import a list of knockout points from a url permanently, like the briefing text files right now. They better document them in the briefing. But this can make a descent mechanism to give designers more control over player action.

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[Slapdragon]

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

I'm sure the rariety system will be spiffy. But if I had my druthers I'd want another global work around for the perennial pricing issues, in the following form. Imagine there is a screen for price adjustments, with +10%, +25% (or 33), +33% (or 50) settings perhaps, and likewise -10%, -25%, -33%. At the set up stage, if a "custom conditions" option is choosen for a given QB. OK?

Then, the player who starts up the scenario fills out this screen, which includes terrain type, types of forces on each side (heer vs. guards or security vs. partisans or whatever they are), quality levels, weather - all the same things filled out now. But in addition, he can pick "adjust prices" or "use default prices". If he adjusts prices, he can go through them for either side and tweak each one he wants. It'd be great if the same was also possible for starting ammo levels.

Then, here is the kicker. *After* the first player has filled all this out, before any set up phase he is prompted to mail it (or TCP it) to his opponent. The opponent gets to see all the adjustments made, and all the game conditions. He cannot revise them. But then he, the second player, chooses *which side* he will play. This sets the sides and the prices (ammo, terrain, etc). The second player then makes his force selections using the revised prices. He then mails back to the first who makes his, again using the price revisions (his own), but on the side left to him by the second player. Off the game goes normally.

Thus, the player who starts a "custom setting" QB gets to "cut" the prices. The player who does not start it gets to "choose" the side he will play, under the prices and conditions set by his opponent. His ability to choose either side removes the incentive to lowball prices on one side. All of this can be bypassed at will by just not picking the "custom" option, or by picking it but the first player choosing to leave the prices alone.

Any merit to this idea? I realize it may be late for such a suggestion, but I think it might help address such issues. The point is to kick the complaints back into the players' laps and let them settle such things themselves - but under the "you cut I choose" fairness formula.<hr></blockquote>

1600 possible units, each with a price modifier screen, sounds too complex. Better to just not play people who want this feature. Plus, if you get the screen and spend all that time looking through it, you might miss somehwere in the middle a gamey price change.

I think this just sounds like a sucker tactic to try and squeeze an extra advantage out of the game system over an well meaning opponent.

There is a way to do this also, just play at +25% forces and make the guy you are playing play the other side. That way you get cheaper units (since you get more to purchase them with) and can pick the units you feel are overly expensive, while gaining the gamey advantage of slipping a ringer in on the other side.

[Berlichtingen]

Seems there are two camps:

1) Those who buy expensive yet fragile units when the situation calls for them and seem to wring the 'point' value out of them

2) Those who wish to buy fragile units at a reduced cost to make up for either not knowing how to use them or not recognizing what situations to buy them for

[Andrew H.]

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

If he adjusts prices, he can go through them for either side and tweak each one he wants. It'd be great if the same was also possible for starting ammo levels.

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: JasonC ]<hr></blockquote>

I'm a little leery of giving players the ability to tweak individual unit prices; I think what I don't like about it is that I'm afraid it will encourage the use of more system-type play by players who tweak various prices. Certainly it can also thwart some system-type play as well, although doing so requires a relatively high level of knowledge concerning pricing.

In general, too, I don't like (philosophically, I suppose) there being a lot of choice about pricing (or, really, about choosing forces (although I do enjoy doing it)). It seems wrong that so much of the victory in CM depends on picking the right forces, when this was one element that historical battalion commanders had very little choice about.

For balancing purposes, though, in QBs and ladders, it probably wouldn't be bad to allow the "handicap" feature (i.e., the thing that gives one side more or less points) to have more details at the lower handicap levels. I think that the gap between Attacker -10% and Attacker -30% is too large to permit effective player-negotiated balancing for QBs. In conditions where a player feels that SMG squads would be particularly effective, it might be the case that penalizing the German player 10% in a ME would still leave him with an advantage, but penalizing him 30% would be too much. Having this adjustable in 5% increments from 5% to 30% might allow a little more flexibility; it may also be more natively compatible with the rarity function and the automatic unit selection.

I do really like the idea of being able to purchase additional ammunition for units, though. As I mentioned above, one of the general problems I have with general unit selection is that a CM level commander had little real choice concerning the units he got -- the company commander generally couldn't say, "I'd like my company's attack to be supported by 10 M8 HMCs," or "let's take a platoon of Fallschirmjaeger along."

A CM-level commander did have some choice about support units, though, and could realistically add a couple of extra bazooka teams or MMGs or whatever because these things existed to be parcelled out (MMGs) or could be established with men from existing units (bazookas, sharpshooters, etc.). I imagine that it would be fairly easy for, say, a captain to advise a platoon (or the whole company) that they were going to bear the brunt of the fighting (or were going to be doing a lot of suppression, or whatever), so they should take along extra ammo (or make sure they had a full load, or whatever). I don't know the historical reality of this, actually, but it has to be much more realistic than the same captain finding three pumas to support the attack . And it would be more realistic for a quick battler to use up spare points by buying extra ammo for existing units than by attaching some random unit to his company.

I would imagine that extra ammo might be expensive.

Extra ammo is problematic for support weapons because their mobility is at least partially based on the weight of their ammunition. Permitting support weapons extra ammo, but having them lose the extra ammo if they move would deal with this problem and also simulate fixed positions stockpiling ammo.

Of course, all of these changes are based on CMBOs ammunition routine; I understand that ammo usage will change in CMBB, and this might affect the desirability of ammo changes.

Although if they are going to track grenades individually, you might as well stock up!

[Redwolf]

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

Seems there are two camps:

1) Those who buy expensive yet fragile units when the situation calls for them and seem to wring the 'point' value out of them

2) Those who wish to buy fragile units at a reduced cost to make up for either not knowing how to use them or not recognizing what situations to buy them for<hr></blockquote>

Those who get overspecialized/fragile units in scenarios and outright play without them, even when in a situation where you would usually try to use any support you can get. Thereby decoupling CMBO play from the military principle of mass. This is a bad thing, especially if one the half of CMBO players do it who understand victory points.

Those who would like to use Marder, Nashorn, flamethrowers in Quickbattles (e.g. to get the appropriate SP AT gun for many German infantry divisions) and agree that the purchase price cannot be lowered because then can be effective. Still, they do so much victory point damage in the actual play situation that it just is not worth it. You will not seriously claim that anyone chooses a Nashorn to get a decisive ladder advantage, will you?

Ah, and then:

Those who understand that the mental reduction on binary win/loss instead of exact victory level in this discussion does not do anything about the problem. If you do not care about a 10 percent victory level difference between 76% and 86%, you would care about 46% or 56%, thus win or loss. Whatever distorbs victory level distorts win/loss. I am somewhat surprised I have to mention that, but it seems neccessary.

[Battlefront.com]

OK, there is a lot of stuff being tossed in here now and I really don't have the time to totally reply to each suggestion. But here goes basic responses...

Jason's idea involves a lot of coding, especially because it can't work with the current multiplayer code. It might not be a bad idea to some, but how many people would really use it? How many would care? Very few, I am sure. It also suggests that the whole pricing system, as is and will be, sucks so bad that we have to let the player tweak stuff. Even Jason admits that his gripes about pricing are limited to but a few units, and yet he is the single biggest griper about pricing we have ever seen on this forum in 1.5 years. My point here is that in the big picture of all that needs to be done with the code, this is such a small potatoes issue that we can't even consider it.

Back to an earlier statement of mine... purchase points don't win or lose battles, players do.

Redwolf, the introduction of Rarity (if played with) will do away with almost all of the external rules that people employ. Not only that, but I would suggest that ladder games be played without user selected forces at all, as this removes the need for rules since CM is totally unbaised and (averaged out) fair. A combo of CM selected forces with Variable Rarity ought to level the playing field greatly. Of course I don't expect people with super competative playing styles to like this. However, if such players don't want to use the tools we provide them which will make more realistic, balanced, and fair unit choices... well... that is their choice

Think of it this way. If a player gets units which don't "work well" for the scenario in whatever way, tough. The better player will figure out a way to utilize them effectively, the weaker player won't even try. Real life battlefield commanders had to employ forces like this all the time, so why should ladder players be spared this? Over the course of a tourney things should balance out with unit allocations just as they balance out with lucky first shots and such. Or should we have a special setting that keeps track of "lucky" stuff and gives the player who is "unlucky" some sort of break when the scores are tallied up? It really is the same thing. The request is to have luck and good judgement overridden by some sort of game setting.

I would suggest the following proceedure for a CMBB Ladder Tourney:

Each Ladder would have a STRICT set of setup parameters which could not be changed by any player for any reason in any game. Since all setup options are not visible to players in the game, which means umpires see them to, this will be very easy to enforce. I personally would play a ladder where CM chose everything Randomly except for battle size (which would either be ladder specific or agreed to by both players), Rarity (set to Variable Rarity), and side/nationality. The game would generate the battles and each player would check out what the game was like in Setup. Each player would be allowed one Right to Refusal, which would result in another game being drawn up. So at most the third game generated would be played.

Andrew, I agree that giving players MORE unrealistic control over their forces is not something we should spend our precious development time catering to. If we had nothing better to do, well... maybe. But that certainly isn't the case The whole point of Combat Mission is to experience a battle as close to the real thing as possible. It is not to cater to "fantasy matchup" battles by two players who simply care about winning for winning sake. Again, people are free to play Combat Mission in whatever way they like, but that doesn't me we should devote our resources to styles which we personally think could detract from what it is we are trying to create.

In conclusion... we will never, ever make prices end user configurable. If that is something you want, understand that you will never ever get it. This undermines the whole game system, just like allowing people to toy with various other variables. Things MUST have a solid base from which to be based on and we will not do anything to undermine that. We are also not going to spend valuable resources and time adding features which a tiny minority are drumming for, especially when we are sure they would come up with another "gripe" right after we announced a solution to the previous one We also know that if we appease a few people over here there will be an equal number, if not greater, of others asking for special favors over there. We can not get distracted by this when the requests in and of themselves contradict our basic beliefs.

Look folks, if we are to spend our time on anything it would be on features which would actually do away with custom unit purchasing altogether. That would solve more problems, both in terms of balance and realism, than anything else we could imagine doing. But a significant number of people would not like that at all, so instead we are coding up optional features. If we had 10 hours to spend on coding and had a choice between making a feature which allowed even more customized tweaking of an already overly customized force, or spending that time on something which improved core realism or playability of the game, which do you think we should spend the time on? Which do you think we will spend the time on? If you honestly don't know, reread my posts in this thread and I think you will be able to figure it out for yourselves

Steve

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>If you do not care about a 10 percent victory level difference between 76% and 86%, you would care about 46% or 56%, thus win or loss. <hr></blockquote>

Err... you lost me on this one. Are you saying that a FT priced at 30 points instead of 15 is going to make a 10% difference in the score, independent of good/bad play, good/bad luck, good/bad sportsmanship? That is what it looks like you are saying here in a nutshell, but I really hope I'm wrong about that.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Whatever distorts victory level distorts win/loss. I am somewhat surprised I have to mention that, but it seems neccessary.<hr></blockquote>

Funny that you were the one to mention this The reason is that I have recognized this all along, and think that price tweaking and getting discounts for poor use of fragile units does distort the victory level and the win/loss record. Which is exactly why we do not have any intention of making such changes. If you have a fragile unit and you can't figure out how to use it, you deserve to lose it and pay the full penalty for it. Changing the way the game works to counter this also makes weaker players stronger and stronger players weaker. Not going to happen

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

ON the contrary, if JasonC wants user end price configurability - he can draw up his own Excel spreadsheet, post it on a website, and tell any opponents that this is the pricing system he insists on using.

Then for a 1500 point game, say, they simply set the scale for 15000 points, and make "scout's honor" promises that they will only spend 1500 points - according to his Excel spreadsheet, which will include prices for all categories of troops Conscript through Ultra Elite, modified by ammunition, fitness and alertness ratings, and using the correct spreadsheet which crossreferences the phase of the moon with the current day of the week, month of the year, and year.

I am sure many players will be more willing to go through this rigamarole than be foolish enough to place faith in any system BTS comes with. I mean, BTS are clever cookies, ... but they're not JasonC!

[Michael Dorosh]

I have decided that Jason is correct, actually, and I offer this User End Configurablized Point Purchase System. Webmasters feel free to post this on your websites for immediate dissemination to the Combat Mission Community. Except Scipio. He has to beg me for permission first.

German

Infantry Platoon - 1 point

Infantry Company - 3 points

Infantry Battalion - 10 points

Tank - 15 points

Gun - 10 points

Unarmed vehicle - 1 point

FO - 30 points

Air support - 10 points per plane

Russian

As for German

WARNING - this system has not been tested for CMBO, attempts to use these numbers for Commonwealth or US forces are not recommended.

(But if you insist, mulitiply by .5 for British infantry to reflect lack of Bren tripod.)

[Battlefront.com]

Michael has a decent enough work around. Since this sort of work would have to be done for a new pricing system anyway, there is no extra work involved in setting something like this up (which we obviously aren't going to do ). I suspect not many people would play this way, but I also suspect that the number would be about the same if we spent several weeks of coding and testing to make the feature in the game itself.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Hehe... this just popped up in a thread on Rarity which is currently going on. It was posted by KwazyDog (an employee of ours if anybody is not aware ) to illustrate something not relevant to this thread. However, read on...

KwazyDog wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I decided to purchase an early model Marder III with its 76mm gun. <hr></blockquote>

Using Redwolf's logic KwazyDog did something very wrong here. First of all, he chose his forces and selected a fragile Marder III. Worse! Because of Rarity he even paid MORE for it than he would have in CMBO! My God! Can you believe we hired such a fool?!?

But what is this?!? Could it be that Dan is actually sane in spite of his name? Read on...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> My opponent bought a platoon of KV-I's (1941 models) and currently my 76mm Marder has killed 3 out of 4 of them at the loss of 2 of my Pz-IIIJ's.<hr></blockquote>

Ack!! Cripes, what the heck is wrong with this picture?!? Not only does KwazyDog buy something which is totally useless in terms of acheiving victory, based on the overpriced overprice he paid, but he actually used the thing instead of parking it in the rear as soon as he saw those big nasty KV-Is! The guy is completely stupid, obviously, and has no hope of winning this or any other ladder game.

Oh wait... uhmm... I see that he killed 3 out of 4 of those KV-1s while losing his two nearly top of the line turreted tanks. Gee... that doesn't make any sense since it would imply that skill and luck has more to do with victory than the purchase price. But... but... that just doesn't make sense!

Sorry for the sarcasim, but this is exactly why I have been arguing so strongly against point breaks for "fragile" units. In this battle KwazyDog got way more than his point value out of that Marder III and, incidentally, lost his two "better" and more "correctly" priced tanks in the process. So why on Earth should we take away victory points from the Soviet player in the event of the last KV-1 (or something else) knocked out that Marder? That is what a "fragility" discount would do. It double rewards a good player at the expense of the other guy. Totally unfair and totally not going into CMBB

Steve

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Andreas]

Good one Michael.

Steve, I can't believe you let Dan work for you. The least you should do to punish his folly is cancel his paycheque for this month, that'll teach him to not again not to play to win. What a nob.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

Hehe... this just popped up in a thread on Rarity which is currently going on. It was posted by KwazyDog (an employee of ours if anybody is not aware ) to illustrate something not relevant to this thread. However, read on...

KwazyDog wrote:

Ack!! Cripes, what the heck is wrong with this picture?!? Not only does KwazyDog buy something which is totally useless in terms of acheiving victory, based on the overpriced overprice he paid, but he actually used the thing instead of parking it in the rear as soon as he saw those big nasty KV-Is! The guy is completely stupid, obviously, and has no hope of winning this or any other ladder game.

Oh wait... uhmm... I see that he killed 3 out of 4 of those KV-1s while losing his two nearly top of the line turreted tanks. Gee... that doesn't make any sense since it would imply that skill and luck has more to do with victory than the purchase price. But... but... that just doesn't make sense!

Sorry for the sarcasim, but this is exactly why I have been arguing so strongly against point breaks for "fragile" units. In this battle KwazyDog got way more than his point value out of that Marder III and, incidentally, lost his two "better" and more "correctly" priced tanks in the process. So why on Earth should we take away victory points from the Soviet player in the event of the last KV-1 (or something else) knocked out that Marder? That is what a "fragility" discount would do. It double rewards a good player at the expense of the other guy. Totally unfair and totally not going into CMBB

Steve

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<hr></blockquote>

I could'nt agree more, i'm glad BTS has chosen not to cater to the at the moment less skilled players. Forget about the prices and concentrate more on your strategies.

[Priest]

Actually Steve I am totally for the skill of the player making a difference and is it just me or is the fact that this is not a universal opinion just plain scary!

As an example I was originally (and still a little) against a hull down tool. Now before everyone goes crazy on me explain. I agree for the most part now on the following arguements.

1.) A tank commander would know how to get into a hull down position.

2.) Moving into hull down positions can be a bit tedious for beginners.

The reason I do not like the idea for the tool is for the following:

- Depending on how it is implemented the tool might be used to recognize "strong points" on a map which would thus take away from the skill needed from the player to recognize such areas. If I can sweep over a "LOS"-like tool across the map and have it pop up and identify every hull down position you sweep it over. This would take away from a player having to realize the situation and act accordingly.

Now I have not complained are even mentioned this too much because I am waiting to see how it is implemented.

Basically this was a long-winded way of saying, I agree with Steve and those of you who think skill and tactics are the way to go!

[Madmatt]

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

- Depending on how it is implemented the tool might be used to recognize "strong points" on a map which would thus take away from the skill needed from the player to recognize such areas. If I can sweep over a "LOS"-like tool across the map and have it pop up and identify every hull down position you sweep it over. This would take away from a player having to realize the situation and act accordingly.

Now I have not complained are even mentioned this too much because I am waiting to see how it is implemented. <hr></blockquote>

Don't worry it doesn't work that way. You select your vehicle and then issue the Seek Hulldown command then move the command line (looks like a normal move line) to the area you want to be hulldown relative TO.

The unit will then move along that course until it becomes hulldown to the plotted end point (assuming it can). The player can not use it to "scout ahead" as you fear.

The player still needs to have enough skill to properly use this command as they could easily order their unit to seek a hulldown posture relative to a inappropriate or tactically unwise map position.

With all the new commands (and there are many! YA here that you idiotic naysayers on usenet saying CMBB is just a bug patch?!?) the player will still need to use proper tactics and sound thinking to utilize properly. They, like most everything else are just tools, which can be used well or misued and wasted. They dont win the battle for you, thats up to the player.

Madmatt

[ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: Madmatt ]</p>

[Enoch]

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

Don't worry it doesn't work that way. You select your vehicle and then issue the Seek Hulldown command then move the command line (looks like a normal move line) to the area you want to be hulldown relative TO.

The unit will then move along that course until it becomes hulldown to the plotted end point (assuming it can). The player can not use it to "scout ahead" as you fear.

Madmatt<hr></blockquote>

So, if by chance the vehicle cannot find a hull down position between where it is currently located and the ploteed end point, the unit keeps moving to the plotted end point? If so, it sounds like players will need to be carefull with how they use this tool.

[Redwolf]

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

Err... you lost me on this one. Are you saying that a FT priced at 30 points instead of 15 is going to make a 10% difference in the score, independent of good/bad play, good/bad luck, good/bad sportsmanship? That is what it looks like you are saying here in a nutshell, but I really hope I'm wrong about that.

<hr></blockquote>

Example:

You attack a hill with a "core" force of one infantry platoon, two StuGs and a flamethrower, supression added by 3 251/1 APCs and AT overwatch by 2 Marders.

I dont have a CMBO in front of me, but that sounds like a 1250 points game (other infantry elsewhere on the map), which in a ME or usual scenario has around 1x 300 points flag + 2x 100 points flag.

Let us assume you loose 1/3 of the infantry, 1 StuG, the flamethrower, 2 halftracks and both marders. That sums up to losses of 40 + 90 + 37 + 100 + 150 = around 420 loss points.

Let us assume the big flag is neutral and one party holds one of the small ones each. The other player took 300 points in losses.

Victory level = 520:400 points = 56%:43%.

If the fragile units had been at 60% knockout points, it would be 114 less for the owner. 402:400 = 50%:50%

So, this scenario which is quite realistic, but probably worst-case, makes a difference of 7% (rather: percent points). This is not as much as I thought so I will shut up now.

Sometimes real numbers are actually useful to proove (or not) a point.

Steve, Russians do not have .50cals and I do not mind the Marder purchase price, so the example from the other thread does not really apply.

[ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[Madmatt]

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

So, if by chance the vehicle cannot find a hull down position between where it is currently located and the ploteed end point, the unit keeps moving to the plotted end point? If so, it sounds like players will need to be carefull with how they use this tool.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, yes they will. By the way, this and many other new game features will be covered in the near future and since I dont want to get anymore involved in this (to me rather boring and redundant) discussion thread you will just have to wait until then for more info on this.

Madmatt

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Soemtimes real numbers are actually useful to proove )or not) a points. <hr></blockquote>

True to some extent, but not all that usefull when talking about the specific situation and outcome of a particular fictious battle being somehow valid for representing all battles, situations, and outcomes. For example, the KwazyDog scenario listed above is the complete opposite of what you are describing, yet I personally think that is more representative.

Here is another way to look at it. I'll take your scenario at face value, but change a few fundamental outcomes...

Let us assume you loose 1/3 of the infantry, 1 StuG and take the flag. Not only that, but you zapped much of the other guy's big ticket items in the process with your Marders. Now... how does that compute?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>This is not as much as I thought so I will shut up now.<hr></blockquote>

Hehe... well, not only is it not as much as you thought, but your figures are pretty much based on a "worst case, worst use" outcome. And that is why I have been harping on skill and luck being far more important than inherent point values. One player can take a fragile unit and win the game, while another takes super expensive strong stuff and totally botches things up.

KwazyDog's example is just such a good one. As it turns out his force of:

1xMarder III

2xPanzer III J

went up against:

5xKV-1 (unknown types)

In theory there is no contest here. The KVs should have wiped the floor without much in the way of losses. But Dan's PzIIIs were not lucky in a toe to toe engagement, while his Marder stealthfully hid and covered a very narrow kill zone. When the KV-1s advanced to take the ground they thought they won, the Marder plinked 3 out of the 4 that moved into that zone without them even firing back. That is skill and that is what CM is all about

Steve

[Priest]

Redwolf,

Lets look at it without units or flags though.

I am a commander and I have two objectives to obtain in my mission, regardless of my troops or equipment. At the end of the battle I have not achieved either but am contesting one. Hence the enemy has not allowed me to take either although one point is contested. Sounds like a tactical victory for the enemy at that point which is exactly what the points would indicate.

[aka_tom_w]

bump

interesting thread

Great posts by Steve and MadMatt

Thanks for the updates

-tom w