Flamethrowers

[Slapdragon]

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

Well, I guess it would be kind if BTS could explain their point of view. We start to repeat the same arguments over and over again.

At least I do. <hr></blockquote>

From what I have seen, BTS ignores these sorts of threads unless and until some peice of either absoulting excellent or absolutely moronic thing unhinges the whole thing. So far there has been lots of circular arguments asking for the flame thrower to be some sort of Aliens infinite repeater protected by 12 guys, and some drivel about submachineguns shot down about six months ago and supposedly forgotten with disco and liesure suits, but there has been little original thinking or historical analysis of the issue, although a person is buying a book on the subject.

It is in poor form to demand BTS show up in every half baked conversation just to say that the flamethrower of hollywood is not the flamethrower of ETO Europe.

[WWB]

Interesting circular discussion folks. I think that FT teams should remain seperate unit by all means. One thing we forget alot is that a CM battle is quite a bit more rushed than the real thing. It was not unheard of to take a few hours carefully manuvering the FT into place near a strongpoint that needed cracking. Real battles did not have a hard 30 turn time limit.

An interesting example is from the Battle of Kursk, where Das Reich sent FT-equipped pioneer detachments forward to crawl across no-man's land overnight in preperation for the next day's assault.

In CM, flamethrowers are kind of like making that $2 horn bet on 12 in craps. It pays 30-1, if it pays. But it seldom pays.

One thing that would help greatly in CM would be to give FTs the ability to run, at least for short distances. Part of the problem now is that if they happen to come under fire while crossing a small bit of open terrain, they are pretty much dead because clearing the area with any haste is not currently an option.

WWB

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]</p>

[Battlefront.com]

Slapdragon wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>From what I have seen, BTS ignores these sorts of threads unless and until some peice of either absoulting excellent or absolutely moronic thing unhinges the whole thing. <hr></blockquote>

Pretty much right on the money Except there is a third reason... a thread has gone on so long, and so fruitlessly, that we try to chip in and get people to move onto something more productive This thread has acheived "dead horse whipping" status

Folks... MANY huge, fundamental things have changed in CMBB. Many of them address the compltely and utterly unrelated things that have been dragged into and confused with the FT team's effectiveness (or lack there of). But one thing that is NOT going to change is keeping the FT as a seperate element. That will remain for the following reasons:

1. First of all... Engineer units were a rare sight on the battlefield, so the fact of the matter is that 99% of the reasons why people are even talking about this are completely invalidated because they are using them far more than they should be. As we have stated about a hundred other things... if something is ahistorically used, either tactically or just in terms of numbers, the results will be hard to compare to real life. Almost everything I have read in this thread falls into one or the other of these logic traps. Rarity will fix that

2. The day I used a flamethrower I got a chance to talk with its owner, a vet who knew a lot about his pride and joy. What he said jibes with everything I have read about their use. In WWII the FT was held back until the "coast was clear". Then, and ONLY then, was the team brought out of cover. The team would then squirt a target already known to him (by description if nothing else), and then the team would withdraw. This was a hard learned lesson because before that FT teams were picked off like flies, since the enemy zeroed in on the very obvious targets whenever they were spotted.

3. Although the FT was manned by a member of a squad, just as Bazookas and PS (often) were, it does not make sense to do so in terms of their tactical use in CM.

First of all, if the FT was integrated then aproximately 1/3 or 1/4th (depending on formation and year) of the Platoon's men would not be able to provide covering fire wihout risking the FT. And yes folks, if we did integrate the FT into a squad we would make the TacAI assign priority to that squad JUST like we do indpendent FT teams now. So instead of putting 3 or 4 squads up front to protect your FT, you would be short a squad. Not realistic and nor is the obvious attempts to have a "soak off" factor for FTs.

Second, unlike a LMG the FT was not capable of the same movement rate as the rest of a Squad. So we either have to unrealistically slow down the Squad (which is already suffering from point 1 above) or unrealistically speed up the FT. Neither are good.

Third, a scenario designer can delete one or more FTs from a Pltatoon (some nations had more than 1 per company) without deleting a squad as well. If we combined them this would NOT be possible. So if you want a Engineer Company with only 1 FT instead of 2, the Company goes in 1 Squad short as well.

4. Being a flamethrower team in WWII was VERY dangerous. Everybody was gunning for them, and everybody hated them with a passion that held not equal on the battlefield. The only thing more hated by grunts than a FT team was a FT tank. Therefore they were difficult to use because everybody wanted them dead, which means extra care had to be taken to keep them alive. Attempts to add a "soak off" element to make up for tactical errors is not a good thing for us to cater to.

5. Pricing arguments... are bunk. Andreas stated that the best. If the FT was 30 points or 20 points it doesn't make a hill of beans difference. What does make a difference is if the FT kills nothing or a whole company (or at least a key defensive position). In other words, a lower price will not make up for incorrect use, a higher price will not penalize correct use. Plus, as I said above... Rarity will fix the issue of them being used too much.

To sum up...

FT teams are realistic to have and unrealistic to fold into the Squad. Those who are arguing on for this simply on the basis of TO&E are not only misguided, but wrong. The 2 man FT team was part of a squad which was part of a platoon which was part of a company which was part of a battalion... etc. At CM's level it is no more right to combine the FT into a squad as it is all the squads into a platoon and all platoons into a company. Instead, the "right" way to do it is to have each and every man simulated individually. Obviously this is totally impractical for game and hardware reasons, so we go with the next best thing. And that means seperating out team weapons when it makes sense to.

BTW... some Squads in CMBB do in fact have seperate LMG Teams. Main example is 1941 Romanian units. The reason is the same as I stated above. The LMG Teams were seperate (TO&E wise), slower, and larger. 1942 Romanian units were reorganized to specifically address this problem, and therefore the LMG is integrated just like every unit in CMBO is right now.

Like it or not... that is the way it is going to be

Steve

[M Hofbauer]

A bit late and maybe a bit short on but here goes nevertheless...

My grampa was an assault engineer NCO in the Wehrmacht, albeit in the east, around Leningrad. IIRC he said that the flamethrowers were not standard issue of the engineers in the frontline (like their MP-40's and K98k's) but were handed out for certain assignments/operations/attacks/missions. Not always, but they did use them every once in a while depending on the situation. However, when they used them, they were part of a larger squad ("Stosstrupp") which had to cover them close with regular small arms (additionally to the general covering fire). They were regular part of the assault, not some third-wave cleaning-up sort of teams like it has been suggested in this thread.

(btw, when I asked about the use against tanks he couldn't comment since he said that the whole area where they operated was devoid of both friendly and enemy tanks due to the terrain).

Literature on the subject states that the FTs were usually used as part of a larger assault squad (as stated above) but for special occasions used as single teams.

The personal armament of the FT-gunners was a p.38 - pistol.

My personal opinion is that yes, they were rare, but the way they currently are modeled/handled in CM is a bit unsatisfying.

Due to the short range they have, I think it would be better to have them integrated into a Flamethrower engineer squad.

Because they more or less work inside a team just like satchel charges (or PzFausts; you cannot order the Panzerfaust-equipped soldier individually, you have to use the full squad forwhich the PzF is part of the equipment the squad has, and the PzF is used at discretion of the TacAI of the squad).

It would be nice if they had a limited amount of shots that would be shown in the ammo screen, but they would be used at the TacAI's discretion, just like the satchel charges. The reason is that CM currently fails at showing individual infantry combat sufficiently for a satisfying recreation of the tactics with which they were used historically.

Since combat engineers weren't using the same equipment for all purposes (as it is currently modeled), I would like to see several versions of engineers that can be bought. Just like in reality they would use different equipment for different missions. A mine-clearing engineer platoon would have mine-clearing equipment (in this case demo charges), a demolition engineering team would have demo charges and assorted explosives, and, eventually, a flame-thrower - equipped assault engineer platoon would have a flamethrower in two of it's three squads. Or somefink. Different engineer platoons which you can purchase at different prices. It might also be nice to have a mix within an engineer unit, with one element being equipped with satchel charges, and one with FTs, etc. Players could then employ them accordingly.

The point about the handling of a squad-inherent weapon such as this flamethrower is a good one. It begs to be compared with the assault MG42 found in grman squads even as we speak. This MG42 does not seem to limit the squad's movement. However, when used as a seperate LMG42 team, it cannot run. the reasons for this are mysterious and elude me, since the only thing I could think of (both units after all have the same MG42) is ammo supply. However, when the LMG team is dry it still cannot run.

So if you want to limit the squad's speed to that of the then included flamethrower I say be it. Not a problem. I do not want the inclusion because I want to boost survivability, but because the use of a flamethrower happened in small-unit tactics within the assaulting enginner squad which cannot be recreated in CM with it's abstraction. Unlike, for example, Panzerschreck or HMG teams, which had their own purpose and acted as individual teams outside an infantry squad, the flamethrowers were an integral part of the assaulting engineer teams.

Btw I cannot comment on american or british/commonwealth FT tactics, and my opinions above apply only to german FT teams.

I do not say that CM is broken, and I'm not even sure if I am *asking* for a change in the FT teams because I'm not an advocate of them. You *can* use them now, you are discouraged to do so which is also generally ok because they *were* the exception, however I still think they are a bit overpriced. The same usage-discouragement through pircing does apparently not apply to the Jagdtiger, Flammhetzer, the american T8 et cetera. because they didn't operate on their own, I personally think they would be handled better within the TacAI of an assault engineer squad.

addendum: Steve said that

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>First of all, if the FT was integrated then aproximately 1/3 or 1/4th (depending on formation and year) of the Platoon's men would not be able to provide covering fire wihout risking the FT.<hr></blockquote>

which is exactly my point, well, er, more orless. The covering and employment of the FT would happen on such a closely interconnected manner within the squad that the FT has to be part of that squad. they would not operate on their own and be covered by the seperate other suqads, but they would work as part of a larger Stosstrupp squad.

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

The point about the handling of a squad-inherent weapon such as this flamethrower is a good one. It begs to be compared with the assault MG42 found in grman squads even as we speak. This MG42 does not seem to limit the squad's movement. However, when used as a seperate LMG42 team, it cannot run. the reasons for this are mysterious and elude me, since the only thing I could think of (both units after all have the same MG42) is ammo supply. However, when the LMG team is dry it still cannot run.

<hr></blockquote>

This was discussed some time ago, but it did not make many waves since most people don't get LMG units. The LMG in the squad has smmo passed out around 4-6 guys (not sure which). The LMG team, which was part of AT formations as a security measure, carried less ammo, but still had to have that ammo loaded up onto two guys. The reason they could not run once was an engine limitation not seen as very important since they where, afterall, out of ammo.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Slapdragon The reason why I asked for the official point of view was, I wanted to know the ideas behind the decision to seperate FTs as team. I was not able to find the information with the search function. So please forgive me. Beside that, to attack me because I ask the only real experts in engine questions for advise is also not of good form.

Steve Thank you, I'm happy that you have found the time. I will not impeach your arguments, even if I see some details in another way - please see at the end, if you are still interested.

to all The main argument is always 'Nothing is broken, so nothing must be fixed.' In other words, the FTs are historical correct modeled, the engine is okay, but of course the player must learn to use the engine correct, because only if the model is used right he can succeed. I hope I have summarized it correct. Throw with putrid eggs if not

And of course, we all know that the same instance that guides the model we must use is itself unable to make use of it. Except one of you have ever seen an successfull AI led FT attack when you play vs the AI. BAD PUFF! DEEP HIT!

You may find this argument unjustfied, because the AI can't of course be compared with human intelligence. I only want to show that the same engine that models the weapon is not able to make use of it. The AI makes often stupid things, bud it can handle the most units. Bud it can not handle the FT, without doubt. So please have mercy with me.

Well, it is questionable if any of my proposed changes would make a difference for the AI, please please please let's forget the stupid comment.

Steve I will make a last proposal before I return into my cave. M Hofbauer has made some good comments, as I think. Based on them and other posts I dare to propose this:

Instead of a two man team, I propose a 4-5 men team, equipted with the FT and some small arms. It is at normal speed as slow as the FT now, but it can run a very short distance (but still a bit slower than normal infantry) - for example the 25m which are necessary to cross one tile of open terrain or a road. More, and it gets tired very fast. This compromise would cover:

a) The FT is still available as independent team. A must, as you have said.

The FT is covered by infantry. You have said that this is not realsitic, but I think that it would be a compromise to equalize a bit the limits of the engine that I see.

c) The QB player/scenario designer is able to build the 'Stosstrupp' as descriped by M Hofbauer: one engineer squad and the larger FT team would represent the large 'Pioneer Sturmgruppe'. It would have 13 men at all (German troops), this is equal to the Wehrmacht 'Sturmgruppe Squad'.

d) If the FT advances and receives unexpected fire, he can run back into cover. If the cover is of course already to far away, the FT is toasted anyway because it is still a small unit. I guess this is realistic.

e) A larger team would be more expensive, say ~50 points. So it would be useless to buy a gamey and unrealistic force with 10 FTs, cause FTs would be only purchased when the need is expected. At least by players with a brain.

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

[Berlichtingen]

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

Instead of a two man team, I propose a 4-5 men team, equipted with the FT and some small arms. It is at normal speed as slow as the FT now, but it can run a very short distance (but still a bit slower than normal infantry) - for example the 25m which are necessary to cross one tile of open terrain or a road. More, and it gets tired very fast. <hr></blockquote>

This is still a bad idea unless the probability of the FT being the first casualty is vastly higher than the other 3-4. Nothing draws fire like a FT, and it has nothing to do with training. It stems from the fear of burning to death. An MG42 is a more effective all round weapon, but it won't draw fire like a FT will. Unless the engine can single out a FT within a squad it would be unrealistic to make it part of a squad or larger team. It gives the FT more survivability than it should have.

[Andreas]

Steve, thanks for the clarification.

To briefly address Jason's request regarding my stance on the cost of the FT and whether it is overpriced - I don't know, and I don't care. What I do know however is, that the day I get hung up about the price of a unit in CMBO or CMBB is the day I will smash the CD and erase the game from my hard-disk.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

This is still a bad idea unless the probability of the FT being the first casualty is vastly higher than the other 3-4. Nothing draws fire like a FT, and it has nothing to do with training. It stems from the fear of burning to death. An MG42 is a more effective all round weapon, but it won't draw fire like a FT will. Unless the engine can single out a FT within a squad it would be unrealistic to make it part of a squad or larger team. It gives the FT more survivability than it should have.<hr></blockquote>

Well, that would leaves one possible change. The ability to run a short distance.

If someone want to proof it, he shall fill a rucksack with 25kg of wet sand and try to run with it. I was able. I was even able to escape when the neightbours called the medic and the police to catch this idiot who runs over the street with a sand filled rucksack .

I think the ability to jump back into cover is realistic. Even an FT want to stay alive. A Zook team is able to run about 100m or more. A FT is not limited to the ammo issues like a MG. Something between 20 - 50 meters would enable him to cross small distances of unconvered terraine, advance from one house to another or as already said run back into cover when he gets fire from an undiscovered enemy position.

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

[Battlefront.com]

I think that part of the problem here is one of scale, both in terms of time and in terms of organization. This is at the heart of the difference between M. Hoffbauer's (and others') point of view and mine (and others').

Everything that has been said here about how they were used CAN be done in CM right now, as is. If you want to have a Squad offer close support for a FT, fine... keep the two closely bunched up and issue them the same Move orders. Bingo, everything being asked for is now simulated. Realistically. Unless, of course, the intent is to have a "soak off" for the FT, which is totally and utterly unrealistic.

Yes, the most realistic thing we could do from a simulation standpoint is have every single individual man represented as its own unit. That way you could do everything that could be done in real life. But this is impossible to do, not only from a game playing standpoint but also because the computer can not handle this. Period. So this option is not viable and therefore must be weighed against any comparisions between CM and real life.

Some of the discussion here has been about covering fire. I ask you... what is the practical difference between having a Squad providing covering fire for an independent FT team and a Squad with FT Team acting as a whole? All I see, at CM's necessary scale of simulation (i.e. Team/Squad not invididual man) are negatives.

Firepower out is firepower out. It makes NO difference if the FT is part of that squad or not. So from a practical game standpoint, there is 100% nothing to be gained by including the FT in with the Squad. Except, if not specially coded for, offering up a "soak off" factor where the extra men of the unit decrease the odds that the enemy is going to hit the FT instead of a rifleman. But since this is 100% unrealistic we would make up special code to increase the chance of the FT getting hit first. So even the unrealistic request for "soak off" would not happen if we combined the FT into a Squad.

So what would happen if we combined the FT into a Squad? You would be left with a squad which moves slower than all other squads, without any player say in the matter. Well, except if we allowed a "split squad" command that sectioned off the FT to its own Team, which... duh... is exactly what we have in the game now

I think Slapdragon and others have explained why LMGs are different in Squads and as Teams, and why they are not always seperated. However, there is also a game reason for keeping them bunched up with Squads. The game system would become combersome and even unplayable if all LMGs and Panzerfausts were made seperate units.

Think about a Battalion level game. Currently there are about 36 infantry combat elements (27 Squads, 9 Platoon HQs), about half that number in direct support (AFVs, PF/Bzkas, MMGs, HMGs, Co HQ, etc), and again as much in more static support roles (Mortars, FOs, Bunkers, guns, etc). This means the typical Battalion level game has about 72 units, about 70% of which require constant attention.

If we made LMGs their own units the player would now have 27 additional units to command, or roughly a 75% in increase in combat units. If we sectioned out PFs... cripes, the number of combat units could go up another 20-40 units!

This is insane to even contemplate. It also then gets so far down that slippery slope that people will start asking for Squads to be further broken down into sections, which means that instead of having 27 combat units that there would be roughly 100 combat units!!! People are nuts if they think that people would want to play such a game even IF the computer could handle it (and we could handle the extra AI coding ).

What this all boils down to is what I said at the end of my other post. We look at each team served weapon and decide if on balance it makes more sense to keep it a part of a Squad or if it should be broken out as its own unit. Unquestionably the FT should remain seperate. Adding it to a squad only detracts from realistic flexibility, and therefore would be a horrible move for us to make.

Nitpick all you want, but nitpick with an open mind about the REAL ramifications of what your suggestions would make on the game. As is often the case we, the game designers, feel that people making suggestions like this are not looking at the bigger picture and therefore are missing the point of why things are the way they are. Which is why successful game designers are very few and far inbetween. Knowing a lot about the minutia of warfare does not a good game designer make

As I said before... the FT will remain an indpendent team in CMBB and all future games we make. Nothing in this thread has convinced me that it should be otherwise. In fact... it has completely reinforced our reasons for keeping them seperate. Thanks

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Puff (may I call you Puff? ),

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Well, that would leaves one possible change. The ability to run a short distance. <hr></blockquote>

This is a limitation in the CMBO game engine which applies to all "heavy" teams. What will things be like in CMBB? Hmmm... how to put this... well... I guess you have one more reason to look forward to CMBB

Steve

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Yes, call me Puff .

Thanks again for the long answer. Somewhere above I explained Slapdragon that I wanted the advise of the only person/group that have really the full understanding of the engine. I guess at last I can follow your points.

And thanks for the short answer. Now I can still hope .

Time to return to my cave.

And my bathtub

[JPS]

BTS,

thanks for the short answer, great!

Also, if/when spotting the exact type of infantry unit is made harder the FT teams on average will live longer. Of course, a team that bursts 20m of flames should be identified with certainty

JPS

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

BTS,

thanks for the short answer, great!

Also, if/when spotting the exact type of infantry unit is made harder the FT teams on average will live longer. Of course, a team that bursts 20m of flames should be identified with certainty

JPS<hr></blockquote>

How can we be sure? Maybe they have eaten beans?

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

[JasonC]

To Andreas - and I don't care whether you care about pricing, so we are even on that score lol.

Berli said in passing - in my opinion letting the cat out of the bag "An MG42 is a more effective all round weapon". I quite agree, as things are modeled now. But it costs 1/3 as much (even less inside squads, actually, where it has more ammo and survivability).

As for Steve's hand waving about pricing, if you charge anything like the present cost for them I will just use SMG infantry, which is going to be less rare not more, in any realistic modeling. You have put a price on the FT teams that might be appropriate for a hollywood version.

I notice that no one has taken my up on my combat test offer - still. Slap wants to pretend that SMGs are perfectly modeled and priced too. He is welcome to try to prove it - but he won't.

[ASL Veteran]

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

Puff (may I call you Puff? )<hr></blockquote>

Perhaps we can call him "Puff Daddy"?

[Slapdragon]

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

I notice that no one has taken my up on my combat test offer - still. Slap wants to pretend that SMGs are perfectly modeled and priced too. He is welcome to try to prove it - but he won't.<hr></blockquote>

Jason, the reason no wants to play you is most decidedly not because of your hugely proficient prowess with the deadly and undefeatable SMG squads. It is not because of your correctness is this or that pet argument. I just played a scenario that Berli provided the showed he was indeed correct on the matters of flamethrowers.

[Battlefront.com]

JasonC wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>As for Steve's hand waving about pricing, if you charge anything like the present cost for them I will just use SMG infantry, which is going to be less rare not more, in any realistic modeling.<hr></blockquote>

You just can't get your mind around the Big Picture, can you? What difference would adjusting the price of a FT make to the game? Even doubling the price doesn't really do anything, and some people here think it should be made cheaper. But of course only your opinion has any weight, so I will disregard any other logic as it is presented unless it has the JasonC Obsessive Compulsive Pricing Stamp of Approval

You think the ENTIRE game is based on pricing. I strongly disagree. Pricing need only be ballpark correct. Why? First of all, there is NO SUCH THING as perfect pricing. I have seen Jason go on for 1000 words about why this or that should be priced differently by a couple points, and anybody who says otherwise is wrong in his mind. Pricing is as much opinion as it is science, and I don't see why Jason is the master of all he surveys.

So what is more important than pricing? Rarity for one, since +/- point adjustments does not decrease/increase use or behavior unless the point adjustment is dramatic. I bet that if Jason was allowed to rearrange every single price in the game he would catch as much flak as we have. But since we won't let him within reach of the code, he has the luxury of not having to be scrutinized by tens of thousands of people.

The main thing that influences how well the game works is the basic modeling. If I purchase 10 King Tigers and put them up against 20 Shermans the results should be realistic, no matter WHAT the pricing of each is. Or is that too difficult a concept to understand? Victory conditions and ability to have such a match up are not relevant in this respect.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>You have put a price on the FT teams that might be appropriate for a hollywood version.<hr></blockquote>

Well, I think you have an obsession with pricing that is appropriate for... uhm... I guess it isn't appropriate for anything I think even an accountant would think you got a little too worked up about pricing.

In CMBB we have made probably two dozen code and feature changes that will change the entire way the game works. Thankfully we don't share Jason's opinion that pricing is the underpinning of the game and instead of tweaking numbers day in and day out we were more productive. Game improvements and the Rarity feature will fix many of the problems in CMBB, problems which price tweaking wouldn't have even scratched the surface of. So pardon me if I don't think the sky is falling.

Steve

[edgars]

Not that it proves anything, but anyway...

Here's the quote from "Handbook on German Forces" (TM 30-410), March 1945, Chapter IV, Section VIII - Special Operations, Town and Street fighting:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> [...] Assault detachments of engineers, equipped with demolition equipment, flamethrowers and grenades accompany the infantry. [...] <hr></blockquote>

And remember BTS – "customers who complain are your (businesses) best friends".

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

And remember BTS – "customers who complain are your (businesses) best friends".<hr></blockquote>

Whoever said that obviously never worked behind the counter.

[Wesreidau]

People are just miffed they can't rush them into the town in the middle of the QB map on the first turn so they can r0xx0r the n3wb they're playing

PeterNZ

[xerxes]

Interesting, in more modern business practice there has been given a lot of attention to "expensive" customers. It's been discovered that getting rid of your expensive customers actually makes very good business sense. There's a BIG difference between the customer who complains once, about a specific concern (that's the good customer) and the customer who complains all the time about everything and everything (that's the bad customer that you want to go to the competition, let them shoulder the burden).

Of course, posts on message boards don't really apply to this because the cost is negligible.

And yes, modelling accuracy is infinitely more important than pricing "accuracy". Not to mention it is IMPOSSIBLE to get the "right" price in a system of significant complexity (i.e. CM). If the is any price that I think is dead wrong in CMI it would be the relative cost of smgs vs rifles. I'd like to see smgs more expensive then rifles. Then again, I pretty much only play scenarios so pricing is, for me, a trivial issue.

-marc

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Whoever said that obviously never worked behind the counter.<hr></blockquote>

LOL - you are obviously working behind a counter. No one else can have this deep understanding.

Steve If you are still around, I'm interested which sources were used to define the squad OOB. Can you recomment a book? I can find source for companys or bigger, but not for small units. I'm a fetishist - I love stats.

Xerxes I agree. Anyway, the victory calculation is based on them, and sometimes I wonder if this the best way. But I keep silent this time until I have the solution. :cool:

Slapdragon SMG squads undeafetable? LOL!

The magic of CM is: nothing is undefeatable. Well, maybe except the Jagdtiger. But I haven't faced them often enough to verify.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon SMG squads undeafetable? LOL!

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

Talk to JasonC. Last I heard from him they walked on water, killed tanks with single bursts, cleared towns with 1 ammo point, and made great espresso.

[Redwolf]

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

Slapdragon SMG squads undeafetable? LOL!

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

I would appreciate it if people wouldn't turn words in people's mouth, that doesn't serve any purpose.

Jason says that SMG squads are more effective for the cost in CMBO. To which extend is arguable and it is even more arguable whether the problem can be fixed with a price adjustment at all.

Jason has a very black-white view. But still, what's the purpose of this flamebait? It's not that everybody else is *that* good in absorbing other people's arguments.

P.S.: Jagdtiger == gun damage