Interesting Quote from Panzer Aces

[xerxes]

Given there's extreme FOW.

For the 1.2 patch I want an EXTREME rarity option. Really just more variability as an option.

I think the variable rarity system is simply a great innovation. Hats off.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by 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.

What do you do for the infantry?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

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.

How?

[PvtTom]

Buy whatever infantry you want, they have never reaily bothered me.

[Andreas]

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.

It is my understanding they were used in the Recce Platoons of the Panzerabteilungen and the Regiment. That is certainly how PR11 used them in the winter of 42/43. I don't think many were left in mid-1943 though, they had a disturbing tendency to get shot up

For those interested:

Panzerlage 12. PD 1.7.43 (from Niepold's history of the 12.PD) - 12. PD was slated to go in at the northern shoulder of the Kursk bulge, but that did not happen. It had already concentrated near Tagino (35km SW of Kromy) to support the German attack. It was then needed to fight against the Soviet attack near Orel however, where it suffers very heavy losses.

15 III(kurz)

15 III(lang)

6 III(75L24)

2 PzBefWg

2 III(kurz) PzBefWg

32 IV(lang) (36 on strength)

1 IV(kurz)

0 VK1801 (3 on strength) - these are II w/80mm frontal armour

AT

15 Marder (7.62r) (16 on strength)

4 towed 7.5cm

4 towed 5cm

1 towed 7.62r

Recce

15 PSWs (light)

8 PSWs (heavy)

Armoured (yeah right) infantry

8 SPW

Pioneers

5 PPW (Sdkfz. 251/X for pioneers)

Artillery

No SP artillery

24 towed lFH18

6 towed sFH18

4 towed K18

AA

6 towed 8,8cm

1 SP 2cm

1 SP 2cm (Quad)

2 towed 3.7cm

It is interesting to note that almost the whole division was at 100% personnel strength, and that also technically it was very well equipped.

[Battlefront.com]

I won't bother going quote for quote this time, rather I will restate what should be obvious.

Rarity is designed to keep the unit selections in the game inline with the average force of the date and Region. The numbers used for this are what was available for the entire Nation in the field. This is realistic and scientific. If there are 10 times as many T-34/85s in the field as T-34/76s, then you should see T-34/85s ten times as often. The notion that force wide availability is irrelevant is nonsense.

In a specific battle, Rarity is of course not applicable. If such and such a force had this or that rare vehicle, then Rarity is only going to get in the way because it inherently discriminates against "outliers". For such battles, play with Rarity off (if you want to do a QB to simulate this) or use premade scenarios. This removes Rarity and therefore removes the deliberate controls to keep battles "normalized". For an "outlier" situation, that is the obvious way to go.

As for unit purchases, everybody should firmly understand that this is inherently unrealistic, no matter WHAT system is used. So arguments about price tradeoffs etc. are irrelevant. The player should not be allowed to select his own forces EVER, except for historically created scenarios. But obviously people like to do this. It is fun and not necessarily destined to produce an unrealistic force. Therefore, it is a nice feature to have. Personally, I rarely buy my own forces in QBs.

That's pretty much all there is to say. CMBB's Rarity system might not be perfect, but I can easily shoot even bigger holes into the other proposals I have seen. Why? Because we are all trying to create a system which allows for "realistic" purchasing, when in fact the only realistic purchasing system is one that does not allow the player to interact with it

Steve

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

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

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.

How?</font>

[xerxes]

Actually I really meant rarity for those that don't want things TOO rare. Like 50% of what we have now.

[Stalin's Organ]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

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.</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Stalin's Organ,

I must try variable rarity - my apologies for not having done so and I will try it to see how it fits - it sounds better that I had thought from your description......

Whoa... you have only been talking about Fixed Rarity? Hehe... BIG difference. That is a system that is designed to enforce *only* the most common vehicles. Period. Variable Rarity is designed to stay in the middle ground, but dip a price up or down depending on many factors (including luck).

An army list will specify minima and maxima for troops/units/equipment in a given time frame/situation or whatever.

There are two things which are similar but uniquely different:

Tables of Organization and Equipment (TO&E). This is what you are calling an "army list" (never heard that term before). The TO&E specifies what a unit of type x is supposed to have for a given time frame. It is the generic standard that, in theory, all units of type x are supposed to reflect. This is almost never reality. Some nations, like Hungary, have TO&E that is so out of line with the way it really was that we only used it as a guideline, adjusting downwards based on direct and indirect historical evidence.

Order of Battle is what a specific unit had for its TO&E for a given timeframe (generally a single day). While TO&E is never supposed to change, unless superceeded by a new TO&E order, Order of Battle is generally uniquely different every minute of the day. 45 tanks in the morning might be 42 in the afternoon and 15 by evening, recovering to 24 the next morning.

TO&E is very difficult to find and are often in total contradiction to what the field forces are actually using. Especially during transition times inbetween different TO&E standards. Making things worse, some units were sent to the front for the first time using a modified TO&E which was never recorded. Or at least the records have not survived. For example, 4 new divisions might arrive to the front, all at once, missing 1 of their Pioneer Companies, all armored transport, a heavy artillery battery, and with outdated AT guns. So... what does it matter if the TO&E says they are supposed to have x, y, and z when some units were clearly never established in this way? Welcome to the joys of doing historical research

Now, meaningful Orders of Battle are in some ways even harder to find. Records were not very well kept for obvious reasons. Every so often units would have to report their strengths. These reports were generally not kept, but instead made into aggrigate numbers by the next higher unit. For example, we might know that a Panzer Division on x day of y year had 45 PzIVs. How were they distributed? That is not recorded. Worse, which models of PzIVs does the division have? Very rarely is this ever noted. Often it just says "45 Medium Tanks", which can be a PzIII, PzIV, or Panther!

Bottom line is that both TO&E and OBs are very, very difficult to deal with.

It's quite a different system from rationing availability by hiking prices - instead it limits availability by actually limiting the number and mix of troops you get to buy, period.

We do have a reasonable accounting of what types of divisions were on what part of the front at what periods of time, but even that is approximated. Trying to figure out how sub units were equipped is impossible. The sources do NOT exist.

Without trying to be specific tho' - an army list might say something like this for a Panzer-Division in January 1942:

If you found such an OB it would be specific to a single Panzer Division for a small section of time within January 1942. It has no relevance beyond that. 6th Panzer Division, for example, was equipped with nearly all Czech tanks going into Operation Barbarossa. This was abnormal. Most Pz Divs had some Czech tanks, but not to this degree.

So for this theoretical panzer division force in Jan 1942 you simply can't buy a force consisting solely of Pz 4 F's, or Pz 3's long - if you buy Pz 4's then you have to have at least 1 D or E, or if Pz-3's then only 1/3rd of them can be armed with long 50's.

This is artifical, not realistic. There is no data to support such conclusions. And when you count how many different vehicles there are, and how many months, perhaps you might reconsider this being a viable design option. It isn't

Steves' last point about the only realistic purchase options being for humans to not be allowed to purchase is kind of interesting too.

I don't know what the purchase "rules" are for the AI - are there any at all? Obviously within those rules the AI still gets a choice, so as in start point I'd like to see how humans would fare if restricted to those same rules.

The game simply purchases units based on Rarity and overall expendature. If the PzIIIM is cheaper than the PzIIIN it will by the M model. If on the next go around it find that the N is cheaper, it will by the N model. That is, if it is even allowed to buy armor in the first place. Remember, setting all things to Random produces a lot of variability even if you play with Fixed Rarity.

No offense to Stalin's Organ here, but this is exactly what I meant about it being a piece of cake to knock apart counter suggestions. So far nobody has come up with something that is more realistic than the system we have AND actually codeable (one can't code without the data).

Xerxes,

We thought about having something more Variable, but thought that it wouldn't really be of any value. The people who are want more flexibility are most likely the people who are playing without Rarity in the first place. Therefore, we are not going to add another option. Glad you like the existing Variable Rarity though! It is the *only* thing I play with.

Steve

[Tarquelne]

SO:

I must try variable rarity - my apologies for not having done so and I will try it to see how it fits - it sounds better that I had thought from your description......

If I could think of a REALLY terrible threat that

a) Wouldn't violate board policy.

Would be _obviously_ funny.

and

c) Wouldn't result in Nyarlathot*p ascending from shadow and eating my ro

you'd be reading it right now.

BFC-S:

Tables of Organization and Equipment (TO&E). This is what you are calling an "army list" (never heard that term before).

Sounds to me like TO&E and army list are really quite different. The army list being a processed (compressed, a few starches replaced by sugars, extruded in ready to eat portions) TO&E designed not to plainly state, well, the TO&E, but to provide a framework for "purchasing" units in a game.

SO:

It's quite a different system from rationing availability by hiking prices - instead it limits availability by actually limiting the number and mix of troops you get to buy, period.

So, like for every 5 PzIVF2s you must buy 20 King Tigers... or something like that, at least, using ratios of unit X to Y. When you use such lists how often do you have to apply the ratio-rules?

What scale of op/battle/campagin whatever are such things generally used for?

It sounds like they might be better suited to a large scale than CMBB... (and certainly better if you're not using a computer.)

SO then BFC-S:

So for this theoretical panzer division force in Jan 1942 you simply can't buy a force consisting solely of Pz 4 F's, or Pz 3's long - if you buy Pz 4's then you have to have at least 1 D or E, or if Pz-3's then only 1/3rd of them can be armed with long 50's.

This is artifical, not realistic. There is no data to support such conclusions.

To SO: (Repeat of question asked above.)

To both: How "not realistic" is it. At CMBB's scale how often did mixes like those mandated above happen?

I should say, btw, that in the larger battles I end up with a "mix" of AFVs fairly often. Generally a platoon of one type and then one or two others, to "fill out the corners" of my Armor point's "tummy." (That's a technical term - "tummy" should be used rather than point "pool.")

(How "large" are these battles? Large enough to buy a platoon of tanks plus one or two others using Combined Arms, that's how large.)

[ December 09, 2002, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

SO then BFC-S:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So for this theoretical panzer division force in Jan 1942 you simply can't buy a force consisting solely of Pz 4 F's, or Pz 3's long - if you buy Pz 4's then you have to have at least 1 D or E, or if Pz-3's then only 1/3rd of them can be armed with long 50's.

This is artifical, not realistic. There is no data to support such conclusions.

To SO: (Repeat of question asked above.)

To both: How "not realistic" is it. At CMBB's scale how often did mixes like those mandated above happen?

</font>

[Neutral Party]

Interesting discussion and I think Steve hit the nail of the head when he said

the only realistic purchasing system is one that does not allow the player to interact with it

The problem is there is no way anyone in their right mind would purposely select a "realistic" (in terms of some of the examples quoted here) force mix - especially if rarity means one has to pay though the nose for some piece of old junk.

I think one possible solution would be use a web-based approach. Here's the concept:

Someone (no not me) sets up a web page with multiple "realistic" force mixes for each of the standard purchase levels. Each mix is assigned a number. When two individuals agree to play using the system one of them queries the web page. They input their own and their opponents email address together with the area, date and points totals. The web page selects two random numbers, one for Axis one for Allied and emails the players their corresponding "realistic" force compositions. They can then select these forces in the QB setup using no rarity and with more than enough points to buy them - any points left over to be unused.

Opinions ?

Joe

[Tarquelne]

The problem is there is no way anyone in their right mind would purposely select a "realistic" (in terms of some of the examples quoted here) force mix - especially if rarity means one has to pay though the nose for some piece of old junk.

??? The whole point of Rarity is that you pay through the nose for un-realistic forces, not realistic ones.

Or... just what do you mean by "realistic", and which examples?

I don't think there's been any example given that you couldn't get a No Charge eventually using variable Rarity. And if you really want a battle with a specific realistic but unusual force... well, that's what scenarios (or "No Rarity") are for.

I think one possible solution

/snip/

Opinions ?

In that it might give more balanced/interesting forces than Automatically generated ones its an improvement.

However, you can get a realistically "historic" force without excessive costs by using Variable Rarity and never choosing anything with a Rarity charge.

Web method: Go to server and get a realistic force.

Current CMBB VR method: Choose forces for QB and don't buy anthing with a + cost, and get a realistic force.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

I don't think there's been any example given that you couldn't get a No Charge eventually using variable Rarity.

As you stated in an earlier post, it is not clear if this is possible for all units in CM. I would not be surprised if it was not possible for the T-44 and IS-3. I have no problem with this since these units never actually saw combat in WW2. However, the same should not be true for the Sturmtiger, as you rightly pointed out in the same post.

Current CMBB VR method: Choose forces for QB and don't buy anthing with a + cost, and get a realistic force.

My prefered method is to force this by using a rarity by availability model rather than the rarity by price manipulation used in CMBB. But that is water under the bridge, I'm afraid.

[Neutral Party]

Tarqulene said

??? The whole point of Rarity is that you pay through the nose for un-realistic forces, not realistic ones.

Or... just what do you mean by "realistic", and which examples?

By "realistic" & examples I mean the types of force mixtures that were quoted earlier in this thread, primarily related to the mixture of current and obsolete/obsolescent models.

I agree with you when you say it is possible to get

a realistically "historic" force without excessive costs by using Variable Rarity and never choosing anything with a Rarity charge.

but this still suffers from fact that the player is choosing his own forces and there is an unavoidable tendency to optimize the choice.

Of course scenarios do not have the same problems with force selection. What we are discussing here is if anything can be done to improve the situation in the context of QBs.

Joe

[Vanir Ausf B]

Neutral Party, I think BFC is planning on doing something along the lines you are suggesting, minus the web page.

BFC:

I will let you guys in on something we are planning on doing though And that is "formation purchasing"...

Think of this as a progression:

CMBO - introduced scientific, methodical evaluations of each unit's inherent value. This concept, as I have defended here, has not been seriously challenged. A case here or there has been made for tweaks to the system, but no good case has been made to get rid of it.

CMBB - retained the above and added additional elements, specifically Rarity (Unit, Formation, National, and Regional), Division types, and Random options for Quick Battles.

Engine Rewrite - we plan on retaining all of the above pretty much "as is". The difference is that we are planning on adding full divisional TO&E into the game system. That means the player can specify he wants to play the following (using CMBB timeframe for example):

Infantry Division

On the Attack

In November 1941

In South Region

The system would then figure out what nationality should be chosen, then the type of "infantry" division, and if applicable which variant specific to that timeframe and Region. This is pretty much how CMBB works, so here is the twist...

The system would then determine what the best/realistic mix of forces should be for the terrain, type of battle, weather conditions, etc. within the specifically chosen division type (ex: 1 x battalion of "infantry" supported by some light artillery and a small amount of armor). CMBB almost does this but doesn't take as many scenario specific factors into account as we would like. But here is the BIG twist...

The system would chose generic units like:

1 x Infantry Battalion

2 x Artillery support element

1 x AT Platoon

Then, depending on Rarity, the system would fill in the blanks and yield specific units that would realistically be found together.

Sound very similar to how CMBB does things? Well, from the player's perspective... yes. But now think of this in a player choice situation...

You are assigned a specific goal and are allowed to choose your forces. You decide you want to take an "infantry" battle. CM then selects which kind of infantry division you draw your forces from. This then displays the corret TO&E a commander would have to draw from. No tanks organic to that type of division? Tough... you can't select any tanks! If all the division has are crappy towed AT guns of various types in a Divisional AT Battalion, you might be able to choose say two "Anti-Tank Companies". But if the division only has a divisional AT Company and NOT a Battalion... tough... you can only select ONE AT Company. And in any case, the system decides what AT Guns you would realistically have to play around with. Same for any other unit, such as artillery. Division not have access to anything larger than 150mm Howitzers? Well baby, that is the best you are going to get!

There are all sorts of things we plan on doing with this, but I think you get the basic jist. If you don't, here it is in a nutshell...

The player can opt to purchase FORMATIONS only. This means you can sculpt the overall kind of taskforce you will command, but NOT the specific componants. If you select a German Medium Tank Company in 1941 you might get Pz 38(T)s or some type of Pz III or a mix. You won't know until the game starts.

OK, I can already hear the self unit pickers complaining that this does nothing for them because they won't want to play with this option. Well, we aim to surprise even the skeptics

The player could waive this more realistic approach and instead Cherry Pick units by hand. However, they would ONLY be based on what that Division type had available. That means you could take the Panzer Divisions' only PzIV Company instead of a mixed bag unit. However, if the Division only has *one* of these companies you can not purchase two! If the Division does not have SMG troops you won't be allowed to buy them. Of course points will still be used to keep things balanced, so perhaps instead of being able to purchase the whole of the Heavy Panzer Company you can only purchase 2 platoons worth *or* a whole Medium Panzer Company.

Steve's smilies did not survive the cut & paste.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=002392;p=4

[ December 10, 2002, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[PvtTom]

Cool whats the ETA on that? Sounds great.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by PvtTom:

Cool whats the ETA on that?

Approximately two years.

Michael