MGO Exclusive Developers Diary For Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin

[Battlefront.com]

Here are answers to questions. To make this easier for me, I am not noting who the quote came from (byproduct of how I am composing this post );

Reading those point totals (and correlating them to the other rarity-within-division-factors posted), I freaked out when I saw the HUGE and I mean HUGE difference in prices for less common units. An engineer company at 468 points?? Wow, cross that off the list of possible units. At first I thought that this rarity would make all but the most common units all but playable in a QB, but then the last line seems to say that the math is not accurate and that the figures are unplayable. I wonder though...

No, the math was pulled out of my backside because we were still months away from implementing it However, the math might not be that far off. We are going to use a standard Divisional formation, for that nation for that year, to determine what is internally rare. For example, a normal 3 regiment German Infantry Division in 1941 would have the following:

Infantry - 9 Battalions

Pioneers - 1 Battalion

Recon - 1 Battalion

That means you are NINE TIMES more likely to see an Infantry Battalion than a Recon Battalion, on average of course. Or put another way, if you role an 11 sided die (hehe... that would be an UGLY die ) you have a 2:11 chance of getting something other than Infantry, with it being 50/50 chance of Pioneer or Recon.

How wil anyone ever have anything but the commonest units? I mean, even a 10% jump in cost would cause someone to pause.

That is the entire point of Fixed Rarity, so if it does this it will be 100% successful in achieving its design goal. Variable Rarity should lean a game towards "commonest units", but not as strictly.

And is that a listing for Cavalry I see? Didn't think Cav (mounted or even unmounted) was going to make it in?

Yes, Cavalry is in, but unmounted (as explained far too many times ). All nations have Cavalry, but some have hardly any (Germany and Finland in particular).

Panzer Leader! Have some respect - they are Romanians, not Rumanians...I see BTS got THAT right too....impressive!

Yes, we are impressive aren't we?

Hah! Peng made it into an article.

We were paid a disgusting amount of money for that endorsement. But since none of us are running for public office, we don't have to report this to anybody other than the IRS

If not I am hard pressed to see who will ever play by the system. I love diversity, odd and interesting units but against a human, and indeed often the AI, there is just no margin for satisfying that interest in the face of a run of the mill, cost effective, force.

This is why we included three different types of Rarity, including NONE. The player is not forced to use any one of them, in general or game to game. We fully expect that people will play all three, but tend to lean towards one setting in particular (I personally use Variable Rarity).

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.

Correct, which is the point of the system. However, sometimes things can be 1.2 times as much as another. We figure, why make it black and white pricing or availability? Actually, it is much harder to program a system that is that restrictive. Best make things on a full continuum, clearly show what the price increase is, and let the player choose for himself. Far more flexible than a black and white "you have it or you don't" system, even if in the end 95% of the choices made are similar.

It's not the numbers per se, it's the idea of charging extra for rare units and therefore ruling them out of most peoples force selections anyway.

A simple availability 'dice roll' to give them a chance of appearing on your selection list seems more logical.

As stated above, it is far more restrictive than even we want Rarity to be. Or, when it allows a choice, lacking any subtleness. It also doesn't allow for some units to be CHEAPER in one game vs. another. The black and white system is just that... very, very bland.

And as for those ROMANIANS, already a sad lot, will anyone EVER buy at 293 points a unit barely worth 80? I was under the impression that uncommon units might be 10-15% higher while the REALLY rare ones would be up to 100% higher, with 15-30% being the general margin. That seems workable, but this??

The example in the article is actually quite misleading. That was an earlier design before Charles and I hashed out a better way to do it. Think of each Nation as having its own Rarity "value" based on its own standard. That means standard Romanian Infantry will be priced accordingly, not according to how rare it was for that given time. However, if you chose Random Nation and Random Region, CM will determine what the Axis and Allied forces should be depending on the number of each unit present for a given date and Region. This means that if Romanians constituted 30% of the Axis Souther Region's force on a given date, you get a 30% chance of landing the Romanians. Then the system figures out what chance of being Infantry, Mechanized, Mountain, Cavalry, or Security within the Romanian Army based on how many units of each were in the field during that time. The numebrs we use are rough, but they are definitely paint a good picture of what the situation was like for a given time period in a given Region. No Italians fighting in the Tundra for example

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.

Yes, the computer picks forces based on "bang for the buck". It is given a bit of license to "splurge" a tiny bit, but basically it will buy the middle of the road and cheaper stuff for you.

I can't quite see the correlation between a "rare" unit and "expensiveness".

A unit is rare or common, that is acceoted, but why introduce price anomaly.

There might be better ways of penalising rare unit purchases using the existing points system that does not involve making rare units more expensive.

Points are an abstract concept from the start, so it is not correct to treat them as a sacred cow. I side gets x number of points to spend on units which are priced according to their "inherent worth". Making them more or less expensive does not increase or decrease their inherent value, but instead limits the player's ability to manipulate pricing to their advantage through unrestricted purchases. There is an old saying... if you want someone to feel real pain, hit them in the wallet not in their stomach. The pain of one outlasts the pain of the other. (OK, I made that up, but damned if it doesn't sound profound ).

Now on to Page 2's questions...

Steve

[DrAlimantado]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

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

Can I have french fries and a diet coke with that CMBB?

Oh, a question relating the gamesystem? Oki. Has there been any large changes to the way night battles are played? One problem I have with CMBO and night battles is that there is no simulation of lightsources. I.e. a zook does not see a tank that fires its main gun on an open field 150m away, etc.

M

[Michael Dorosh]

But Steve, shouldn't the infantry type be tied to the mission? I mean, how often would a recon or engineer battalion be asked to defend terrain? Will this be a consideration also when the computer picks forces for a QB? Will engineers and recon be weighted heavier for, say, the attacking side of a probes than they would for the defending side in attack/defend scenarios?

[Battlefront.com]

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.

Exactly. The system we have is far more flexible and variable than the black and white system, yet it still adequately reflects reality. At least to the extent we wish to control it (one should only be able to buy in platoons, for example, but that is a discussion for another day )

BTW, Force Experience is now varied. When you select a level you will get a small random number "upgraded" and a small number "downgraded". That means a force which could be 10% Regular, 10% Conscript, and 80% Green (I just made up the numbers to illustrate the concept). Don't worry, there is price equity in the system so nobody is going to get screwed vs. the other player's results!

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.

We never promise until something is already coded and working correctly This is something we really WANT to have in there, but not sure if we are going to get it done in time. However, with Variable Rarity (the only option that really matters here) we don't think people will be booting and rebooting to see what they got. The reason is that the system is so varied that it is highly unlikely that the one or two things they are hoping will come down in price will to an extent that matters AND that other units he wants won't go up in price. OK, so you get that Tiger at only +30%, but those Halftracks you want are now +10%. So you redo the setup. Now the Tiger is +80 and the HTs are +5%. Redo. Tiger is now +40% and the HTs are -5%. See what I mean? It isn't like the Tiger is going to be +250% one time and then -5% another. The system is purposefully set up to NOT have mood swings like this. The Fixed Rarity system is used as a benchmark for change, with the range of possible changes being fixed to these hardcoded numbers. Or more basically, the people most likely to do something underhanded like this probably want a Jagdtiger. Well, hate to break it to that player... that thing ain't NEVER going to be cheap

I also think that weenies like this are more likely to not want Rarity at all. No, Rarity Off folks are not all weenies, but I do think that weenies are disproportionally apt to play with Rarity Off. It was, after all, primarily because of them that Rarity became a major design goal in the first place!

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!

Oooo! This one is a smart 'un! Folks should listen to him. Well, at least this one time!

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?"

Don't forget that Force Type is important. If you get "stuck" with Infantry, then you aren't going to get squat for vehicles of any sort. Rare or otherwise. If you play with Combined Arms or Armored you will get a whole different balance.

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?

To use a real game example...

1200 point Attack battle in July, 1941 with Fixed Rarity for two different game setups:

1. Infantry Division with Combined Arms - 1 Battalion of Infantry with support from a platoon of Pz38(T) Ausf E + 150 points left over to spend on Infantry, Support, Vehicles, or Artillery (Armor is maxed out).

2. Mechanized Division with Combined Arms - 1 Battalion of Infantry (Mot) with support from a platoon of PzIV D + 110 points left over to spend on Infantry, Support, Vehicles, Armor, or Artillery.

And this is with FIXED Rarity folks There were, BTW, plenty of armor choices to make all within the same pricerange. I could ahve bought, for example, PzIVEs and been left with 80 points.

Note that the force difference is because Infantry Division Combined Arms battles use one set of max spending per unit type than Mechanized. That means a Mechanized Division can opt to purchase more/better armor than an Infantry Division. Also note that in this case the Infantry Battalion for an Infantry Division was more expensive because it is bigger, yet it still was able to max out the Armor catagory with points left over.

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.

Sure, just don't buy the IS-3s and you should be all set

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).

Me too! Like any sane person would ever pick a 1941 Romanian Infantry formation to fight a Soviet Mechanized one Hehe... OK, I would, but I doubt many others would!

In our VERY strong opinion, these options will seperate the REAL tactical gurus from the GAMEY ones. In other words, the people who claimed to be great tactians should do well even with some of these, er, less optimal force mixes. The ones that have relied on tweaking out the game system and selecting only a narrow range of options which they have mastered will be beaten worse than than a tennis ball at Wimbelton Again, nothing wrong with playing "gamey", just don't try and compare apples to oranges.

-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.

The system is not that sophisticated. The equipment (guns, tanks, halftracks, etc.) are priced according to how rare they were relative to their own catagories (MGs, AT Guns, Vehicles, Tank type units, etc.). We can not price a HT differently if the person should select a Recon Battalion vs. selecting an Infantry one. Fact is both choices are available at the same time, so this would be impossible. We also don't price them differently for each Division Type or Force Type, but instead adjust the max points allowed for things like Vehicles and Armor. Get an Infantry only force and both of these are zero.

-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.

Prices are the same, max points allowed to be spent vary.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

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.

The burdon would be on coding, and that is the reason it might not happen. But as explained earlier, this is a problem in theory more than it will be in reality. First of all, I have a feeling that most people predisposed to cheat will not play with Rarity on in the first place That should inherently limit cheating, further reduced by Lady Luck taking back some of the good stuff in this redo what she gave the person in the first attempt.

Has there been any large changes to the way night battles are played? One problem I have with CMBO and night battles is that there is no simulation of lightsources. I.e. a zook does not see a tank that fires its main gun on an open field 150m away, etc.

Without a lighting model and more flexible spotting system (i.e. Relative Spotting), there isn't a hope or a prayer of doing anything involving light that would be worth a darn. So no, we did not add light effects to night time fighting.

But Steve, shouldn't the infantry type be tied to the mission? I mean, how often would a recon or engineer battalion be asked to defend terrain? Will this be a consideration also when the computer picks forces for a QB? Will engineers and recon be weighted heavier for, say, the attacking side of a probes than they would for the defending side in attack/defend scenarios?

In theory, this is more true towards early war for Germans, less true for Soviets. Flip flop towards the end of the war. But no, the system inherently lacks this degree of fidelity, so it is not possible to do this.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

However, with Variable Rarity (the only option that really matters here) we don't think people will be booting and rebooting to see what they got. The reason is that the system is so varied that it is highly unlikely that the one or two things they are hoping will come down in price will to an extent that matters AND that other units he wants won't go up in price.

This assumes there are other specific units that he wants. I would think it more likely that someone doing this would be satisfied to get one unit he is looking for that his opponent will not expect due to rarity being used (probably a type of rare tank), and will be willing to go with common units for the rest of his force.

OK, so you get that Tiger at only +30%, but those Halftracks you want are now +10%. So you redo the setup. Now the Tiger is +80 and the HTs are +5%. Redo. Tiger is now +40% and the HTs are -5%. See what I mean? It isn't like the Tiger is going to be +250% one time and then -5% another. The system is purposefully set up to NOT have mood swings like this. The Fixed Rarity system is used as a benchmark for change, with the range of possible changes being fixed to these hardcoded numbers. Or more basically, the people most likely to do something underhanded like this probably want a Jagdtiger. Well, hate to break it to that player... that thing ain't NEVER going to be cheap

Will highly rare units like KTs ever be priced at or below base cost, or will they always be at a premium, and the only variable will be at how much of a premium?

[Ex Bellator]

Thanks for the explanations, much appreciated. I think VAB has just asked the only question I have left with the KT example.

[James Crowley]

So, the computer picks by price, tending mostly to the cheaper ( bang for the buck) units.

Presumably then, on fixed rarity, some units would never appear (like Ferdinands and Jagdtiger for example) but, with variable rarity, there would at least be some chance for these types of unit to be selected. Do I have that right?

Could make all the difference in having any form of rarity active if using computer-pick only QB's.

[aka_tom_w]

Has anyone given any thought to how victory points will be tallied???

Seriously, now in CMBB with both Fixed and vairable rarity, units have differing values depending on how and when you buy them.

So now what happens in the game when you kill them or destroy them? in CMBO you know/knew a tank was worth a set and fixed value and knocking it out was a big deal you then earned those victory points.

"OK, so you get that Tiger at only +30%, but those Halftracks you want are now

+10%. So you redo the setup. Now the Tiger is +80 and the HTs are +5%. Redo.

Tiger is now +40% and the HTs are -5%. See what I mean? It isn't like the Tiger is

going to be +250% one time and then -5% another. The system is purposefully set

up to NOT have mood swings like this. The Fixed Rarity system is used as a

benchmark for change, with the range of possible changes being fixed to these

hardcoded numbers. Or more basically, the people most likely to do something

underhanded like this probably want a Jagdtiger. Well, hate to break it to that

player... that thing ain't NEVER going to be cheap "

OK so in the example above if the Tiger is worth +30% +40% or +80 does that make it worth that much MORE to my opponent when he knocks it out??? :confused:

So how do victory points work in CMBB now??

(please excuse me if this has been covered somewhere else )

-tom w

[ May 09, 2002, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Mattias]

Thanks for putting in the time to clarify Steve.

I don't think anyone who follows the board had missed that the rarity options are, eh, optional but I was nevertheless a little puzzled by the way fixed rarity panned out in the end. With the quite distinct "normal" force being shaped, depending on time, place etc.

Looks to be "the" choice for those who want a realistic force but doesn't know exactly what that entails. Perhaps making it easier to go from fun play to historical, and fun, play.

I don't think the comments about the fixed rarity comes from frustrated ladder players as much as from people who thought they had understood how it would work and now found it to be something else.

I like it, though it is a little out of the CM ordinary with it's, more "firm" structure

M.

[Dirtweasle]

So to summarize, and if I have this wrong someone please let me know;

There are 3 ways to have the force selection parameters set-

1) Standard - Where the points are as we are used to with CMBO.

2) Fixed rarity - per force type so that uncommon units cost more based on a historical model.

3) Dynamic - So that there is a chance to get some less common unit types at a reduced cost, but others at higher.

Is that about right?

[Mattias]

[ May 09, 2002, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Battlefront.com]

More answers:

Will highly rare units like KTs ever be priced at or below base cost, or will they always be at a premium, and the only variable will be at how much of a premium?

They will always be at a premium because they never, ever were anything but highly uncommon. Some vehicles, however, can be ultra rare one month, but then dirt cheap for another. The reason for that is they WERE rare at one point, but then became rather common. And vice versa, something cheap can become super expensive as the numbers at the front dwindled.

Just picked a date at random. March 1945 (Vehicle, Cost, Rarity)

FIXED

King Tiger - 442 - 40%

Tiger 1E (Late) - 492 - 150%

VARIABLE #1

King Tiger - 474 - 50%

Tiger 1E (Late) - 394 - 100%

VARIABLE #2

King Tiger - 347 - 10%

Tiger 1E (Late) - 306 - 50%

VARIABLE #3

King Tiger - 410 - 30%

Tiger 1E (Late) - 285 - 40%

VARIABLE #4

King Tiger - 442 - 40%

Tiger 1E (Late) - 321 - 65%

To put this into perspective... you could purchase at least 3 late StuGs for the price of one of these beasts, even when at their cheapest. 4 could have been bought one try when the Tigers were high and the StuG's were -5%.

Presumably then, on fixed rarity, some units would never appear (like Ferdinands and Jagdtiger for example) but, with variable rarity, there would at least be some chance for these types of unit to be selected. Do I have that right?

To the degree the unit in question is Rare that month, yes. But like I said, the system will purchase units which are above cost, it just tries not to do that most of the time. And what is super rare one month might be common the next, so something like a King Tiger might never appear in June 1944 (790 points!!), you might see the computeer pick one if it used Variable Rarity and lucked out as Variable #2 above shows.

OK so in the example above if the Tiger is worth +30% +40% or +80 does that make it worth that much MORE to my opponent when he knocks it out???

Sure, why wouldn't it? If I gave you a wine glass made in the millions, and you dropped it, no big deal. If I gave you a wine glass made by some craftsman 200 years ago and you dropped it... er... not something to be taken lightly

Yes, this means that a player that splurges on big expensive and rare things is really putting his eggs in one basket. Not only tactically speaking (1 King Tiger vs. having 4 StuGs), but the loss of that one vehicle might mean an uphill battle to get a decent victory score. As it should be. Just one more reason to discourage people from buying the expensive and rare stuff.

So to summarize, and if I have this wrong someone please let me know;

There are 3 ways to have the force selection parameters set-

1) Standard - Where the points are as we are used to with CMBO.

2) Fixed rarity - per force type so that uncommon units cost more based on a historical model.

3) Dynamic - So that there is a chance to get some less common unit types at a reduced cost, but others at higher.

Is that about right?

Correct. The official lables for these three settings are "None", "Standard", and "Variable" (same order as your 3 points are in).

Steve

[James Crowley]

Steve

Excellent! Just what I was hoping for

Also great news about the varied force experience.

Thanks for the very prompt replies.

[Cpl Carrot]

You know Steve, a picture would clear every thing up.

[Battlefront.com]

Cpl Carrot,

You know Steve, a picture would clear every thing up.

Oh, if it were only that simple

Steve

[Smiler]

Re: very rare vehicles:

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

More answers:

They will always be at a premium because they never, ever were anything but highly uncommon. Some vehicles, however, can be ultra rare one month, but then dirt cheap for another

Steve

So as much as I like the VR system in general, I find this a bit disappointing. Let say that a vehicle is a good value if it is within 5% of its base cost. I would think that an ultra rare unit should occasionally be a good value, but much more rarely than a more common unit. Say a King Tiger being a good value 1 out of 30 QBs for a certain month/area, and a panther in that same month being a good value 1 out of 5 QBs.

The point is, when playing someone I want to occasionally see very rare units (without being overly expensive) -- just very rarely! This is not the same as saying I want to play with rarity off.

I'd be curious to see how others feel, and whether this is set in stone or could be swayed by public opinion.

[Eric Alkema]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

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

Yes it does!

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Eric Alkema:

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

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

Yes it does! </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

Rock on!

Since my question got lost in the shuffle, I am going to dedicate my purpose in this thread to hounding Mister Wacky for a turn!!!!

Finals??

[Kwazydog]

Smiler, personally, after playing with this system for many months I usually consider anything that is under 50% rarity worth considering when purchasing units. So to answer you question, yes, if you were playing me you would see rarer vehicles from time to time.

In fact in a PBEM I played not to long ago I spent +60% extra to purchase a Ferdinand. The map was in my favour, and although my opponent went in the opposite direction and purchased a platoon of T-34's plus a platoon of T-26's, it was worth every percent extra. Of course, it was a risk and one aircraft of gun/track hit would have resulted in a loss for me.

It will depend on who you are playing and what their playing style is, but I think you will certainally see rare units from time to time.

Dan

[Smiler]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:

Smiler, personally, after playing with this system for many months I usually consider anything that is under 50% rarity worth considering when purchasing units. So to answer you question, yes, if you were playing me you would see rarer vehicles from time to time.

It will depend on who you are playing and what their playing style is, but I think you will certainally see rare units from time to time.

Dan

Fair enough. One could argue that because most units in a VR game are more common, the rare uber-units are less likely to meet enemies that can stop them. Which would mean that paying a reasonable premium could very well be worth it.

Thanks for all the information, guys! I'm really looking forward to this system.

[aka_tom_w]

OK so in the example above if the Tiger is worth +30% +40% or +80 does that make it worth that much MORE to my opponent when he knocks it out???

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, why wouldn't it? If I gave you a wine glass made in the millions, and you dropped it, no big deal. If I gave you a wine glass made by some craftsman 200 years ago and you dropped it... er... not something to be taken lightly . Yes, this means that a player that splurges on big expensive and rare things is really putting his eggs in one basket. Not only tactically speaking (1 King Tiger vs. having 4 StuGs), but the loss of that one vehicle might mean an uphill battle to get a decent victory score. As it should be. Just one more reason to discourage people from buying the expensive and rare stuff.

Wow, Thanks for the very prompt and informative reply Steve.

that should make folks think twice.

I am not really a fan of the whole "buy/purchase" of units in the "ever popular" ME QB so this is not a big deal for me.

It seems sort of odd or interesting that if you knock out someones "rare" AFV (say that Ferdinand/Elephant Dan paid %60 extra for) that they paid extra for then as the killer of that particular AFV you have sort of hit the jackpot (in victory points) but you might not actually know it at the time, OR will you see the estimated Victory point number/value spike up dramatically after you "hit the jackpot "and nail that expensive Elephant??

Just curious?

-tom w

[ May 09, 2002, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Grisha]

Very interesting clarification, Steve. Thanks!

[Battlefront.com]

Smiler,

I've been thinking along the same lines as you for a while now. I do think that Variable Rarity, as it is now, works just fine. Most stuff will become a possible purchase at some point in its lifecycle (see King Tiger example above). However, it would be nice to see even a 200% Rare vehicle pop up into a game once in a GREAT while. So Charles and I decided to add a sort of "wild card" draw. What that means is that 99% of the time it will work as it does now, but 1% of the time (or whatever low number we decided works) the system will ignore its parameters and discount it much more than it would otherwise. Meaning that 200% Rare armored car in June 1944 might normally never get below 50%, but once in a blue moon perhaps it will.

Steve