MGO Exclusive Developers Diary For Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin

[Chupacabra]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

People with ginger or red hair are "rare" but having red hair does not make them special.

Speak for yourself. Redheaded chicks are hot.

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:

the simplest way of doing it would be to just do the first part of the equation shown - I.E. in a QB you get a % chance of a unit being available for selection on your purchase list.

No, it will not work because people would reboot the quick battle generator until they get the choice they seek (the human nature you know...)

I don't see the need for a cost multiplier at all, as another poster said, who is going to buy one infantry company of any type when it costs 3 times as much as another.

Nobody, that's why it is called a rarity system, because rare units will not show. Do you suggest here to have simply a rarity level selection like we have an experience level selection in CMBO QBs. But i think people complain now that they would like to mix experience levels in QBs. So BTS is just trying to avoid this limitation.

[ May 08, 2002, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Thin Red Line ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

No, it will not work because people would reboot the quick battle generator until they get the choice they seek (the human nature you know...)

The system Rex was talking about would not be any more susceptible to this than the one BTS is using. Fortunately, BTS has promised to make this impossible, probably by not allowing either player to see the purchase screen before the first file is sent.

[ May 08, 2002, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

I truly seems impossible to get ANYTHING other than straight infantry.

It looks to me like even plain-jane tanks will be over-inflated by at least 2X.

With fixed rarity, yes. But with variable rarity even the rarest units will occasionally be price down to their "base" pt. value. At least that's how it's supposed to work.

[Panzer Leader]

Hey can we confine this conversation to the system they ARE using, rather than systems they decided against? I am really hoping for some clarification on how this will work, and don't want to see the waters muddied. Thx!

[Warphead]

I still don't get what everybody is talking about. Rarity is OPTIONAL. If you think it is unfair then don't switch it on. If you want to play that two platoons of IS-3 you have to play without rarity or else they will cost a million points (rounded up).

I doubt that you will have much fun with rarity settings in a ladder game. Historical players will like it. It is a matter of taste, what kind of battle you play and what you agree upon with your opponent. Absolutely nothing to worry about!

OPTIONAL is the keyword! Nobody forces you to use rarity!

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

The system Rex was talking about would not be any more susceptible to this than the one BTS is using.

For variable rarity, you're right. I had only fixed rarity in mind, sorry.

[ May 08, 2002, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Thin Red Line ]

[Panzer Leader]

Originally posted by Warphead-:

I still don't get what everybody is talking about. Rarity is OPTIONAL. If you think it is unfair then don't switch it on. If you want to play that two platoons of IS-3 you have to play without rarity or else they will cost a million points (rounded up).

I doubt that you will have much fun with rarity settings in a ladder game. Historical players will like it. It is a matter of taste, what kind of battle you play and what you agree upon with your opponent. Absolutely nothing to worry about!

OPTIONAL is the keyword! Nobody forces you to use rarity!

Is there a way to have a qb with a company of infantry and a platoon of PzIVs (is that gamey??) without spending so many points on the panzers that you could (AND SHOULD) get an additional 5 or so copmanies of infantry? Is that equivalent to your "wanting to play with IS-3's?"

I am just worried about playability. After all, if a tank battle, or a AC battle is impossible with rarity in place, then it is unworkable. Just because I might want a Stug doesn't mean I want a Sturmtiger, sheesh...

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

Is there a way to have a qb with a company of infantry and a platoon of PzIVs (is that gamey??) without spending so many points on the panzers that you could (AND SHOULD) get an additional 5 or so copmanies of infantry?

Isn't this exactly what you can do in a combined arms QB now? As I understand it, with rarity off, CMBB will have a comparable points scale (based on unit capability). This seems obvious, so I must be misunderstanding your question...?

[Panzer Leader]

Originally posted by Offwhite:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

Is there a way to have a qb with a company of infantry and a platoon of PzIVs (is that gamey??) without spending so many points on the panzers that you could (AND SHOULD) get an additional 5 or so copmanies of infantry?

Isn't this exactly what you can do in a combined arms QB now? As I understand it, with rarity off, CMBB will have a comparable points scale (based on unit capability). This seems obvious, so I must be misunderstanding your question...?</font>

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

With rarity ON, can I still play a competitive QB with a company of infantry and a platoon of PZIVs without spending such an outrageous amount of points that it becomes wasteful.

Being that Pz IVs were one of the most common German tanks I doubt they will be much effected by rarity. I don't see why the answer wouldn't be "yes".

EDIT: Um, wait. I think I see what you're on to now. Let me look this over...

[ May 08, 2002, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Warphead]

PzIVs and StuGs as the "working horses" were not rare so they will not be more expensive than without rarity. Somehow that is the whole point of rarity, isn't it?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Ah, good catch. I admit I did not look closely at the exact numbers. Hmmm.

The example given in the article does seem to suggest that any Axis unit other than the most common infantry would be subject to massive point penalties, which if true would seem to encourage people to buy very infantry heavy forces, which would not necessarily be historical or fun. It would also make it very difficult to use non-German units with rarity. Note that there is no specific mention of armor in there, so this is somewhat speculative. I guess we'll be needing further explanation after all...

[Ichthys]

From the article:

"Assume this example covers ONLY a non-computer selected Force of Type Combined Arms for the South Region, June 1942 with no Nationality specified and Fixed Rarity in place."

From this is sounds to me like you can limit the "rarity" cost of some items by restricting your force selection. Nobody would choose Romanians in an unrestricted nationality game, but restrict your nationality to that and you don't have to pay the Romanian-rarity-cost. If you don't want to pay the rarity cost of Tanks then choose an armored force instead of combined arms. Maybe CMBB will provide a 'recon' option for the force selection for those who like armored cars?

The example gives a glimpse of what is coming, but I'm sure the real thing will be much richer and provide more depth than one little example can show.

[Smiler]

So in a previous thread my understanding was this:

In a variable rarity system, the base price of the unit is calculated using the rarity figures Steve talks about in the MGO web site. So perhaps you see engineers listed with a 4x base price over rifle platoon. However, the actual cost for that specific QB will include some variable factor that may make the unit more or less expensive. Depending on how extreme the factor is, you might even see a rare unit as cheap as its effective cost (the CMBO costs) -- perhaps even a bit cheaper. The more rare the unit, the less likely that is to occur. Therefore, you will occasionally see a Jagdtiger being as cheap as it is are in CMBO (still fairly expensive), but that's much less likely than seeing a Panther at its CMBO cost. If they show all three figures (the base "effectiveness cost", the fixed rarity price, and the variable rarity price), the player will be able to see how effective the unit is, how rare they were in real life, and what kind of deal they're getting.

Usually, the Jadgtiger will be prohibitively expensive, and no one could realistically expect to do well by picking it. Sometimes, it will be at a moderate premium, such that the player could pick it without crippling himself if he really wants to. And rarely, it will be a good deal.

Therefore, in variable rarity games you would expect most forces in the game to be historically common, but many games will have at least uncommon units, and some will have rare ones. Isn't this what people want?

In PBEM games, you probably won't be able to see the unit screen until after sending the file at least once, otherwise the system could be abused.

I'm looking forward to it, as it will force people to choose things they don't normally choose (and sometimes things they don't really want).

BTW, re: the tank prices. The act of picking combined arms implies armor. I would hope that rarity applies to units vs. the most common type of the category (i.e. PzIV rarity = 100%). Otherwise, you'd rarely see tanks in a combined arms QB, which seems kinda silly. I didn't see anything in the MGO article that implied otherwise, but perhaps I missed something.

[KNac]

the questions are:

-relative to what are those values? only to infantry or each type (tank, amored car/haltrack, other vehicles, guns, artillery, etc) has it scale and is relative to that type. if all the equipment in the game is relative to infantry the tanks will get crazy prices, but if a tank is relative to the tank class it will be fair. and different countries off course, is not the same the number of tanks that there were on the red army than in the heer.

-there will be different scales for different battle types? i mean the prices shouldn´t be the same for a tank battle than for a combined arms battle or for a inf battle.

finally, is not the definitive or perfect system, is not realistic in the meaning that because a unit being rare it doesn´t mean that a unit is more expensive, but however it accomplish the effect it´s looking for, reduce the present of rarer units in the battlefield.

and as someone said, it is optional.

[wbs]

From M. Bates:

People with ginger or red hair are "rare" but having red hair does not make them special.

Yes it Does!

[Panzer Leader]

Yes Knac I think you summed up pretty well our concerns. I am not too concerned with the last item you mentioned, as BTS' system of variable rarity has been decided, but I am becoming concerned over its implementation. I love the idea of VR, and want to use it, but I am hoping to be assured that they have indeed kept it playable. This system should be here to limit the gamey use of the King Tiger (for example) not the simple selection of a humble half-track.

With "Recon" at a *3 multiplier (whatever that means, but it seems to me that it increases the price by at least 3 times) ot will be virtually impossible to play a QB with half-tracks. I happen to love half-tracks, so this saddens me. Do I have to run the risks of my opponent greedily picking KVs and whatever other rare and frilly stuff they have (in an un-VB game) just so I can have my half-track?

I never considered that the rarity might be based on the "force type" (combined, etc.) or that it is based on "rarity-within-class" (such as KT rarer than PzIV) but I hope it is one or both of those methods.

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by James Crowley:

In QBs does the computer pick forces by cost values? If it does, then rarity as described, could have a huge impact on final selections.

For those of us man enough to play QBs as nature intended (computer picked forces.) this could mean little or no rare units ever. :eek:

If, on the other hand, computer picks are, or will be, based on % chances, then no problem. Presumably, with fixed rarity, a unit that has a 7% chance to appear will only ever be picked seven out of a hundred times; with variable rarity that percentage chance may vary between, say, 3 & 10 %. That would seem fair.

Obviously "self-pickers" (have you no shame!)need to be controlled by cost, in an attempt to conform to historical reality.

Still, a bit more explanation on this topic would be very welcome.

This was also my question after seeing these numbers. But as was said, the example was only about non-computer pick, so I trust we will get on this front about half the time german vanilla and half the time something else, which should suffice to keep all-random historical type players happy.

[ May 08, 2002, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]

[Kwazydog]

Guys, its VERY important to note that what you see there is a development diary. That rarity info was taken from an email from Steve that was written part way through a discussion on how rarity would work, and it was an example which Steve said he used figures to prove a point, not ones that should be necessarily be used and certainally not ones that you should get all worked up about.

Im not going to go into the mechanics as to be totally honest I dont know them, but I can tell you now that rarity works very well! Well enough that I can say I never wish to play without it turned on again. Thats just me of course and I understand its not for all players, but I much prefer an historically geared scenario over one that has me fghting platoons of Sturmtigers, hehe. Now, some examples using VARIABLE rarity (note I am not going to mention figures as I dont know if they are final)

Now, PL, Im looking at a June '42 quick battle here with variable rarity turned on, and you can buy a skdfz 251 for its standard price, probably the same as it was in CMBO. Nothing to worry about there! If you wanted to buy a Sdkfz 251/2 though, you will have to pay a little more as they arent as common as the stardard model...10% more that its origional price in fact. Not much, but maybe enough to encourage players to choose the Skdfz 250/7 mortar half track, as its rarity is only 5% for the same type of vehicle (though more analysing players will probably want to compare ammo loadout, etc). Ive noted that the 250 version is usually more expensive as it was a more rare vehicle, but I guess I got lucky this time.

Now, lets move onto tanks. Ive picked a late '43 battle to see what we have. Good news...I can buy a Stug IIIG or a Pz IVH for -5% rarity, so they are actually cheaper than usual. It seems that I can also buy a Panther A model for no change in price, which seems a pretty good deal too. Next on the list is a Marder III (late) which is +5% rarity, so its well worth considering also. If I want to buy a Tiger though, thats not so great as its +30% its standard price, but its still well worth consdiering as its not all that much extra (if your the type of player that likes to put all of his eggs in one basket). Personally, I often buy vehicles up to +50% if I feel they will served their purpose which, in this particually selection, allows me to purchase anything from a Nashorn to a Brummbar (one of my favourites!).

Now, let see how variable rarity effects some of these figures if I start a new battle (and note that each side is somewhat wieghted against the other with regards to rarity, so if players keep starting in an attempt to get a cheap Tiger their opponent is probably recieving a nice cheap SU-152 ).

Well, interesting result. This time Marder III (early) are actually given at a -5% price, so a platoon of those could well be worth considering. Stugs and Pz IV's are still a good buy at no change to their origional price (a little more expensive that last battle). We didnt do so well with the Marder III (late) though, as it is now at +20% rarity, so somewhat more expensive than it was previously. Not so good on the Panthers also as the same model as above is now at +10% rarity, but a Tiger is available at +20%, which is 10% cheaper than before. My Brummbar is out of the question this time at +80% *but* of particular interest are the Ferdinands, also at +80%, which could really ruin your opponents day on the right map (or you own on the wrong one)!

Lastly, let me touch on infantry. I dont know the details here, but yes, an Engineering company in this battle is about twice the price of a standard grenadier platoon. Very important to note though is that each engineer platoon has twice as many squads in it with flame thrower support though. In fact, each engineering squad is cheaper than each grenadier squad, so a direct comparison here really is not possible. When Steve has the time though, Im sure he will give you more details.

Hope that has relieved some fears guys. Like I said, I think that it works extremely well and personally variable rarity is all that I will be using as it keeps within historical limits whilst allowing players to see the rarer units from time to time. Fun stuff

Dan

[ May 08, 2002, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Panzer Leader]

Dan you put all my unfounded fears to rest. That is EXACTLY what I hoped to hear, and I am even more impatient for the game -- if that's even possible! Thanks for taking the time to explain things, sorry I doubted you

[Panzer_Meyer]

Yea this sounds awesome. All this teasing, damn it, I want my game now.

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:

so if players keep starting in an attempt to get a cheap Tiger their opponent is probably recieving a nice cheap SU-152

Dan, if I read this right, you're saying that there is no extra turn to send to prevent people from continuously restarting 'til they get the rare unit they want? I would welcome an extra turn if it would alleviate any possibility of trying to cherry pick by re-starting. It wouldn't be much of a burden on the players since the file would be a once-a-game send, and would be very small. It would eliminate any suspicion of tinkering with the game. The variable rarity system sounds very nice; I can't wait to try it out. And I do know to try to play trusted opponents, but this one extra turn would help immensly, IMO. Thanks.

- Chris

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Wolfe:

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

so if players keep starting in an attempt to get a cheap Tiger their opponent is probably recieving a nice cheap SU-152

Dan, if I read this right, you're saying that there is no extra turn to send to prevent people from continuously restarting 'til they get the rare unit they want? I would welcome an extra turn if it would alleviate any possibility of trying to cherry pick by re-starting. It wouldn't be much of a burden on the players since the file would be a once-a-game send, and would be very small. It would eliminate any suspicion of tinkering with the game. The variable rarity system sounds very nice; I can't wait to try it out. And I do know to try to play trusted opponents, but this one extra turn would help immensly, IMO. Thanks.

- Chris</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Folks,

It looks like Kwazy did a good job addressing the main points. However, I already had this nice note typed up, so I am going to post it (wasn't around to do it earlier ):

OK, looks like it is time to debunk the disinformation, worries, and muddled thinking about Rarity again

First of all, might I quote from the article as PL quoted in his first post?:

I had said...

Again, the math I used is probably not very good for playability reasons, but it does illustrate what I am trying to show here.

That the math I used was not really the math used in the game, but that it does illustrate the CONCEPT of what Formation Rarity is all about. It would appear that some people ignored this bit and jumped right on those numbers as if they came right out of CM. They didn't, BTW, since at the time this aspect of the game was not coded. Sheesh... talk about taking an imaginary ball and running with it So, can we forget about the numbers I used and just concentrate on the concept? Puuuuulease?

Now...

Remember that Rarity is designed to alter, in no small way, how CMBB is played vs. how CMBO was played for those people who want to play with more historically balanced battles. Otherwise, those who want to play CMBB just like CMBO can with Rarity Off. Every comment, argument, or point of view I see which leans more towards watering down Rarity so that it doesn't do what it should be doing is most likely coming from the players who (for the most part) play with Rarity off. Ladder gamers in particular, since they are the #1 users of "gamey" forces. Note that there is NOTHING wrong with playing with Rarity off, otherwise we wouldn't have included it as an option But the last people I think should be trying to influence the functionality of a feature intentionally designed, from the ground up to be realistic are those who do not want to play the game that way. It would be sorta like having corporate criminals dictating Energy policy for the government Put another way, if we want to have an optional feature that is geared towards one group of people and NOT another, we need to look at it from the perspective of the group the feature is intended to serve. Simple concept, apparently very hard to get across since this is about my 1000th time explaining this

So, let me section this off as its own point:

The concept of Rarity is to restrict the use of less common forces so that games are more representational of real WWII battles, and not the übertruppen battles which people purposefully or accidentally (through ignorance) play with in CMBO. The entire purpose, THE ENTIRE PURPOSE, is to penalize players for making unrealistic unit choices. Fixed Rarity does this in a way that creates the same viable choices for a given month, given year, given force game after game. However, Variable Rarity is designed to offer flexibility so that less common units can be purchased with reduced to no penalty at all.

So, does this mean that all we are going to see are battles between the same infantry and tanks all the time?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, just had to vent Rarity is highly varried, but in different ways that many people in general are still not grasping. So here we go again...

Fixed Rarity gets its variety from the combo of nearly 50 possible months of combat, 6 Nationalities, different Force Types, and 4 Regions that must be chosen for each and every game. Add to this other factors, like weather, terrain, casualties, etc. and you have more variety after the units have been selected for each side. The point here is that unless you play the same two nations against each other in the same month of the same year with the same Force Type... Fixed Rarity is not even remotely limiting in terms of choices. Yes, choices within each situation will always be the same, but each battle itself has a LOT of room to be unique.

Variable Rarity gets its variety from the fact that all of what is true for Fixed is true of Rarity, BUT the price penalties change every single time you boot up the Quick Battle generator. Unlike the proposed "die roll" system, the variable price increase/decrease system allows for much more subtle choice possibilities. It is up to the player to decide if he wants to buy something a little bit rare, and possibly MUCH better, or go with more of the common stuff. This encourages games to be far more varried than the Fixed system, yet not as free as the CMBO system.

Obviously with Rarity off CMBB plays just like CMBO, so that needs no explanation.

OK, now that I have once again explained the philosophy behind the system, I'll answer a few specific questions.

Steve