Interesting Quote from Panzer Aces

[PvtTom]

I am reading Panzer Aces by Franz Kurowski and this struck me as interesting:

"The 6th Panzer Division's tank situation early on the morning of 10 July (1943) was as follows: 5 Panzer IIs, 17 Panzer IIIs Long, 5 Panzer IIIs Short, 10 Panzer IVs, 2 command tanks, 3 flamethrower tanks, and 5 captured T-34s."

What struck me as strange was real life info compaired to what you would find in 99% of the quick battles we play, who would ever buy Panzer IIs in a 1934 quick battle? Now I know most people already know this but the majority of quick battles we play are a joke when you look at the units involved.

[Sgt. Steiner]

Yeah, everyone wants the heavies; Tigers, KT's, KV's, Stalin tanks. What they had to make do with in real life isn't as much fun..

[Le Tondu]

I think that you mean "1943 Quick Battle."

Anyways, I would buy them if my Quick Battle opponent and I agreed to have certain constraints on our purchases. (QBs aren't just for competitive ladder play. They can be great for friendly games too.) For instance a couple of platoons of medium tanks, a platoon of light AFV for recon purposes and maybe a heavy thrown in for fun against a like sized force seem like a nice little battle to me.

I agree that BTS could do some better work with QBs. An "All Armor" (and nothing but armor) setting would really be nice. But getting back to your question, it all depends upon what Division setting we use on the purchase screen, doesn't it?

[ December 08, 2002, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]

[GreenGriffon]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

I agree that BTS could do some better work with QBs. An "All Armor" (and nothing but armor) setting would really be nice.

I'm definitely with you on that. Sometimes I just want to slug it out with some tanks, and really wish I could do it effortlessly, without having to purchase the units for both sides.

I hope one of the BTS gods hears my prayer.

Edit: I don't mean to hijack the thread so carry on with the original question

GG

[ December 08, 2002, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: GreenGriffon ]

[Herr Kruger]

Originally posted by PvtTom:

I am reading Panzer Aces by Franz Kurowski and this struck me as interesting:

"The 6th Panzer Division's tank situation early on the morning of 10 July (1943) was as follows: 5 Panzer IIs, 17 Panzer IIIs Long, 5 Panzer IIIs Short, 10 Panzer IVs, 2 command tanks, 3 flamethrower tanks, and 5 captured T-34s."

What struck me as strange was real life info compaired to what you would find in 99% of the quick battles we play, who would ever buy Panzer IIs in a 1934 quick battle? Now I know most people already know this but the majority of quick battles we play are a joke when you look at the units involved.

I'm proud to say I rarely used the heavies in CMBO, though I think it may be hard to maintain that in CMBB. Hehe.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

I agree that BTS could do some better work with QBs. An "All Armor" (and nothing but armor) setting would really be nice. But getting back to your question, it all depends upon what Division setting we use on the purchase screen, doesn't it?

Can't you just set it to "armor" type and then agree w/ your opp. to only buy that?

[ December 08, 2002, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[GreenGriffon]

I don't know about Le Tondu, but I meant against the AI.

[Guest Mike]

One of the problems with the purchase system is teh variability.

It ups teh points for vehicles that might've ben rare, but are basically cr@p - eg who'd buy a T40 in 1944, or the Pz-2 listed in 1943 - especially since they would cost +200% of their normal price?? (I ahve a description of a Russian brigade in Leningrad in early 44 that has a few T34's, some T-60's and a single T40 - in 1944 for heaven's sake!!)

There's no incentive to purchase older obsolete equipment that's been kept in service because there's nothing to replace it.

There were thousands of T34/76's still in service in 1945 still, but you ahve to pay a damned variability cost for them - ridiculous!!

IMO a better variability system would be based upon the presence (or absence) of later and/or upgunned or armoured vehicles, and absolute numbers involved in the scenario, not over the whole historical army.

Eg the ratio for short and long Pz-3's could be set so that atthe start of the long 50's entry to service you have to have 2-3 shorts for every long, while in 1943 you have to have 1 short for every 2 longs - else you pay a penalty in points cost - something significant - like +100%.

Older equipment should always be able to be bought in at least small numbers, and there should be no penalty for captured equipment - it should either be available (probably in limited numbers) or not, perhaps randomly or by division type.

Yes I know you can turn the system off, but alas that makes it worse - the current system IS better than nothing - it's just that it can still be improved a lot!

[Gaylord Focker]

I've yet to use a heavy tank in CMBB.

Sometimes i don't even take tanks at all.

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

(GreenGriffon, that was what I was talking about. Right on.)

Sivio Manuel, that would be nice, but when you do that, this what happens for a 500pt ME:

If you pick the units, you get to spend 500 on armor. You are right there.

If the AI picks the units, you can get something like this:

GERMAN

1 Green Tiger

2 Green Panzerschreck teams

1 Green Rifle 44 Platoon

1 Green Recon 44 Platoon

1 Conscript 44 Platoon

Versus

RUSSIANS

1 Veteran M4A2(76)W Sherman

1 Veteran Guards Platoon

1 Veteran AT Rifle team

1 Veteran 50mm Mortar team

1 Veteran 12.7mm HMG

1 Regular Recon Platoon

I don't know about anyone else, but all that infantry isn't armor. The human can ignore the infantry, but the AI never seems to ignore them ---and that is what I hope will change.

If we want an all armor QB against the AI, we ought to be able to get one. It is possible. Isn't it? Lastly, I know that I'm not the only one (besides GreenGriffon) that would like this ability.

[ December 08, 2002, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]

[Battlefront.com]

Mike,

One of the problems with the purchase system is teh variability.

Obviously I would disagree For more specifics about why we chose this system vs. others, check out the CMBO discussion area using search word "Rarity".

It ups teh points for vehicles that might've ben rare, but are basically cr@p -

Right... because it is called a R-A-R-I-T-Y system, which simulates, oddly enough, rarity The abilities of the vehicle form the basis, so a crappy rare tank will likely be less than a decent slightly rare tank.

eg who'd buy a T40 in 1944, or the Pz-2 listed in 1943 - especially since they would cost +200% of their normal price??

Play with Variable Rarity and this might not be the case. However, it SHOULD be the case most of the time. Otherwise people would be able to buy these things too frequently, which completely defeats the point of Rarity.

There were thousands of T34/76's still in service in 1945 still

Got a source for that? Our Rarity system is based on available numbers proportional to total stocks. Therefore, if we did our homework correctly the Rarity system is portraying the historical availability quite well.

IMO a better variability system would be based upon the presence (or absence) of later and/or upgunned or armoured vehicles, and absolute numbers involved in the scenario, not over the whole historical army.

Uhmmm... QBs are not simulating specific battles, so where on Earth would the numbers you speak of come from? Scenario desginers can make whatever they want, so all set there.

Eg the ratio for short and long Pz-3's could be set so that atthe start of the long 50's entry to service you have to have 2-3 shorts for every long, while in 1943 you have to have 1 short for every 2 longs - else you pay a penalty in points cost - something significant - like +100%.

That is totally unrealistic The Rarity discussion has produced more unrealistic counter suggestions that I can count. Plus, think of how the purchasing system works. How would your proposal work with the system? There is no accounting for how many of x are bought vs. y and adjusting prices accordingly.

Older equipment should always be able to be bought in at least small numbers, and there should be no penalty for captured equipment - it should either be available (probably in limited numbers) or not, perhaps randomly or by division type.

This completely and utterly flies in the face of Rarity. What you are saying, like others before you, is "yeah... things should be rare, but I should always be able to buy 'em if I want to." Kinda like saying "I think bars should be smoke free, but people should be able to smoke whenever they feel like it". This mindset is absolutely incompatiable with any Rarity system and therefore one can not coexist with the other. Well, unless you turn Rarity off. Then everything is peachy.

Yes I know you can turn the system off, but alas that makes it worse - the current system IS better than nothing - it's just that it can still be improved a lot!

I agree that there is room for improvement. However, your suggestions would basically destroy the CONCEPT of Rarity, no matter what the mechanics are. Don't feel offended, nearly all criticism of our Rarity system (before the game release) has this "I want rarity but without rarity" mindset.

Steve

[Lumbergh]

To address the original post, I would have to say that I for one don't want to play a realistic CMBB QB.

Didn't late-war Soviet attacks pack a whole division into a 1500 m frontage? Geez, that wouldn't be much fun to play. Ok, the German player gets 2 weakened companies of infantry. The Soviets get a whole division.

Might be fun as the Soviets vs the AI, actually

[Sirocco]

I outline a rarity system in the past that gave a unit an initial value, and then increased the cost after each purchase dependant on it's rarity. Therefore you could have a rare unit at a certain cost, but purchasing more would become exhorbitantly expensive to limit numbers to what would be considered accurate for that timeframe and circumstance. But everyone has an opinion on what would work, although BTS has the final opinion.

[WWB]

The rarity systems like you discribe Siricco are fundamentally flawed as they are at odds with reality. Take Tigers for example. They should be reasonably uncommon in general (base rarity). But when avaliable they should be plentiful because they were concentrated in heavy panzer battalions. If you saw one, you likely saw a dozen. With more common tanks you tended to have entire units of Panzer IIIs, for example.

So a system where buying one makes the next one more expensive is at odds with reality.

WWB

WWB

[Guest Mike]

Both occured - eg single KV-1's stopping panzer divisions in 1941 (so to speak), and battalions of Tigers in 1944.

I don't see any reason why both can't happen - buy units of tanks by platoons, and singletons singley!!

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

The rarity systems like you discribe Siricco are fundamentally flawed as they are at odds with reality. Take Tigers for example. They should be reasonably uncommon in general (base rarity). But when avaliable they should be plentiful because they were concentrated in heavy panzer battalions. If you saw one, you likely saw a dozen. With more common tanks you tended to have entire units of Panzer IIIs, for example.

So a system where buying one makes the next one more expensive is at odds with reality.

WWB

WWB

I don't agree with that. It depends on how it's coded. I agree with your point, but from a design perspective that can be factored in. It's complicated, but possible.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Mike,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />One of the problems with the purchase system is teh variability.

Obviously I would disagree For more specifics about why we chose this system vs. others, check out the CMBO discussion area using search word "Rarity".</font>

[Guest Mike]

My apologies - it was T-70s and T34/76's - my memory was in error.

From the Russian battlefield site page on active service by the T34/85:

"As often happens in war, military equipment sometimes changed hands a few times. In the spring of 1945, the 5th Guards Tank Brigade, fighting as part of the 18th Army on Czechoslovak territory, captured a T-34-85 medium tank from the Germans. It is interesting to note that, at that moment, the brigade's equipment consisted of T-70 light tanks, T-34 mediums, and a battalion of captured Hungarian tanks. The captured vehicle became the brigade's first T-34-85 tank."

A guards tank brigade equiped with captuerd tanks and T70's and T34/76's in Spring of 1945!! Who'd have thought.

[Tarquelne]

Only on a large scale. For a smal action in the CM size of things rarity on an army-wide scale can be largely irrelevant.

That's what Variable Rarity is for... think of it this way: Anything with a - or 0 Rarity cost is what is available, Commander. Everything with a + cost is off with some other Co. or Bat.

As far as I've ever read the long 50-armed Pz-3's were mixed with short-50 armed ones down to company level - maybe evenat platoon level.

And you can have both short and long 50's at No Change with Variable Rarity.

However the current system is also quite unrealistic,

Could you expand on that?

Older equipment should always be able to be bought in at least small numbers, and there should be no penalty for captured equipment - it should either be available (probably in limited numbers) or not, perhaps randomly or by division type.

This completely and utterly flies in the face of Rarity.

Yep - because rarity is an irrelevant consideration at the CM level.

USE VARIABLE RARITY! Sometimes the older eqipment was there, sometimes it wasn't. The frequency with which you can purchace it at No Change, using Variable Rarity, will vary with the actual frequency of the apperance of the equipment. What's the problem?

no - I quite specifically said there should be limitations on numbers of old equipment - yuo even quoted that section!

I think WWB's post said all that's necessary here. Did real WWII tankers KO a Tiger II and then think "Whew, that was nasty! But now we can relax some... after all, what are the odds of there being _another_ Tiger II anywhere near here?"

However to be realistic the limitations should be by the number available to be fielded, not by a system that makes old equipment cost far moer than it is worth in actual figting ability.

That extra cost is like pain. You can keep your hand on the hot stove, but your body is trying to tell you it's wrong. In a similar manner, you _can_ buy equipment with a sig. Rarity "tax", but - if you want to have an "historical" battle - it's wrong. The System is trying to tell you that the "taxed" items are supposed to be elsewhere.

No, the system isn't perfect, it could have more options... but it does avoid some of the drawbacks of other proposals (so it's not like they went with what was without-question the worst implimentation), and it does the job... if you use VARIABLE RARITY.

I fear that Variable Rarity may not be variable enough. Steve once wrote something similar to "Perhaps some vehicles should always have a Rarity cost increase, even under Variable Rarity." in one of the threads on the subject. I don't know exactly how the system was implimented, so it may be that a Sturmtiger, for example, is _never_ at No Change under Variable Rarity, which would mean that it was never anywhere, which I find foolish. However, it _should_ turn up at No Change so rarely I don't see this as much as a drawback. I like my QBs to be strongly flavored by whatever equipment was really in use at the time, so I don't see this as a big problem.

I have seen a Sturmtiger as low as +40%, though. Way down from the usual +200% it normally costs, IIRC. The point costs are supposed to express combat value, right? Well, I thought the +40% cost Sturmtiger was a _bargin_, factoring in the suprise and even disbelief of my opponent.

Heh.

Do you think the Tank Brigade in Leningrad that had a T40 in 1944 kept it in preference to some T34's? Or they sacrificed a couple of ATR's to have it?

Well, here we have the point at which QB purchacing is a game, not a simulation. You do have a choice - a real commander wouldn't. Or, if you only take No Charge items, you're staying closer to reality. It's up to you. But you have to be using VARIABLE RARITY.

T40 was unbelievably rare at the time was irrelevant to them. It was what they had.

Second QB setup screen. Lowermost left. The drop down box allows you to select Standard, Variable, or None. Under Variable you, too, can _rarely_ get a T40 at No Change.

"I want rarity but without rarity" mindset.

This is ballderdash.

I think it comes from your "older equipment should always be avilable...." comment.

The _Rarity_ system never makes equipment Unavialble, just expensive. And, if older equipment was always available at no Rarity tax then players could and, more to the point, WOULD buy it in ahistoric numbers. Thus, the "rarity without rarity" characterization.

It's called "army lists". They're as common as muck in historical figure gaming circles.

Explain how they're different in effect from Variable Rarity, please.

[ December 08, 2002, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[laxx]

actually, a typical player would start with heavy tanks (heavily armored, good optics, good shoot to kill ratios), then as time progresses, the player would switch to medium tanks, jadgpanzers, and perhaps with infantry, and then the most hardcore gamers here would switch to StuG III with combined arms as it were on the Eastern Front.

Panzer IIs make great recon units, disposable and cheap, also good at drawing out enemy tanks, and especially good for drawing Turn-0 Artillery Fire (ie. hide all tanks in a safe location except the Panzer II(unhide), let the AI target it for initial bombardment). At worst you lose the Panzer II, but you spare your troops Artillery fire. I did this in Totenkopf although as Russians.

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by PvtTom:

I am reading Panzer Aces by Franz Kurowski and this struck me as interesting:

"The 6th Panzer Division's tank situation early on the morning of 10 July (1943) was as follows: 5 Panzer IIs, 17 Panzer IIIs Long, 5 Panzer IIIs Short, 10 Panzer IVs, 2 command tanks, 3 flamethrower tanks, and 5 captured T-34s."

What struck me as strange was real life info compaired to what you would find in 99% of the quick battles we play, who would ever buy Panzer IIs in a 1934 quick battle? Now I know most people already know this but the majority of quick battles we play are a joke when you look at the units involved.

It might be worth pointing out the historical moment. This is July 10, six days into the Kursk offensive, and the 6th Panzer was one of the German army's spearhead units. Not suprising that the division was down to five light tanks and 42 mediums after six days of very hard fighting against prepared defenses. Wonder what their tank situation looked like on July 4?

[Michael Emrys]

Mike,

Just reading your posts, I wonder if the solution to your problem doesn't simply lie in using the scenario editor to create the kind of OB you are looking for rather than trying to coax one out of the QB generator, which never will.

Michael

[Galka]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

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

I am reading Panzer Aces by Franz Kurowski and this struck me as interesting:

"The 6th Panzer Division's tank situation early on the morning of 10 July (1943) was as follows: 5 Panzer IIs, 17 Panzer IIIs Long, 5 Panzer IIIs Short, 10 Panzer IVs, 2 command tanks, 3 flamethrower tanks, and 5 captured T-34s."

What struck me as strange was real life info compaired to what you would find in 99% of the quick battles we play, who would ever buy Panzer IIs in a 1934 quick battle? Now I know most people already know this but the majority of quick battles we play are a joke when you look at the units involved.

It might be worth pointing out the historical moment. This is July 10, six days into the Kursk offensive, and the 6th Panzer was one of the German army's spearhead units. Not suprising that the division was down to five light tanks and 42 mediums after six days of very hard fighting against prepared defenses. Wonder what their tank situation looked like on July 4?</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Galka:

PzIIs were used to protect signal corps, supply and other sundry duties. I doubt that they would be on the front lines unless by accident.

Were any normally assigned to the recce battalion? I've seen various OBs for that unit, and aside from the fact that it no doubt varied according to period and availability, I can't help but wonder if a certain amount of misinformation or even fantasy had crept into some of the descriptions I've come across. Especially in other wargames.

Michael

[PvtTom]

One thing I do to try and keep quick battles realistic is to make an agreement with the other player to only buy units that are 20% OR 50% or whatever rarity, that keeps the units pretty historical.