50mm moter cost 210??????

[Wojo]

Was starting a QB August 44, Soviet Airborne

The 50mm motar attached to the Platoon has a cost of 210 :eek:

[Silvio Manuel]

It must be b/c of rarity, those 50mm mortars were just about obsolete by aug 44 and being phased out for the more effective 81mm's.

[Wojo]

The standard cost for the 50mm mortar is about 10.

This is not the squad weapon, it is inherent (sp?)

In the same period the mortar for the standard infantry has a cost around 10. Only with the Airborne is the coss GROSSLY inflated

Clarification: The AIrborne motar has 4 not two men and carries around 65 rounds. Base value is around 22.

[ September 30, 2002, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Wojo ]

[Battlefront.com]

We'll take a look into it. But in general, yes, the 50mm mortar was discontinued from frontline use by this time. Still, the number should be consistant for all Soviet units.

Steve

[Guest Mike]

IMO it shows the major problem with rarity.

Sure obsolete equipment was rare, but it was also often used to fill in where the replacements weren't available.

I haven't checked, but what's the rarity of a T-40 in 1944?? At least one was still in service on the Leningrad front in a Tank Bn that was mostly T34's with some T-60's (also obsolete by that time).

I think BTS has missed the boat on this one a little - giving obsolete equipment of small fighting value HUGE point costs due to rarity isn't what the complaints from CMBO were about.

The complaints were about the "latest and greatest" being used in numbers that were not realistic rahter than being used mixed with lesser and older equipment.

Not sure what, if anything can be done about it........It's certainly also not eralistic to have hordes of T-40's running across the table in 194 MG'ing all those expensive Pak-43's that can't shoot fast enough to kill them (and you KNOW someone would do that!! lol) - perhaps something linked to nubmers used as well as popints cost??

[Wojo]

OK, a clarification, I was playing with variable rarity that apprently resulted in a HUGE multiplier for the mortar. At standard Rarity

the cost for a Soviet Airborne Platoon/50 mortar

Oct. 43 Entire Platoon 190 Mortar 22

Feb. 44 Entire Platoon 195 Mortar 27

Mar. 44 Entire Platoon 197 Mortar 29

Apr. 44 Entire Platoon 199 Mortar 31

May 44 til end of war

Entire Platoon 231 Mortar 63

Moral of this is: Do NOT play with Soviet Airborne later in war, Especially with Variable Rarity A 50mm Mortar with 4 men, could you more than 4 AIrbone SMG squads.

Sorry. This is a problem

[ September 30, 2002, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Wojo ]

[Silvio Manuel]

BF.C -> I would think that you would almost need 2 different types of rarity- one would be the current one (variable/standard) that is based on availabiltiy. Would you not need another scale based primarily on Combat Effectiveness, so rare piece-o-crap deathtraps like the Hotchkiss would be extra-cheap?

[Flesh]

Why not handle rarity like the Close Combat series did?

You could allow the rarity values of units to determine whether or not they are available in a QB. The points cost could then reflect the combat effectiveness of the units.

[Silvio Manuel]

I found one of these crazy rarity multiplier Bugs just now:

July 44, Variable rarity

Soviet Motorized Rifle Battalion (Tank)'44 costs 3357 pts., due to the 4x 57mm ZiS-2 AT guns costing 550 each at Regular instead of the posted "75 pts. 5% rarity" on the Support screen. Same with Green level, it's then 480pts. ea.

[ October 01, 2002, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[Cameroon]

Well, I'm going to throw in my two cents regarding rarity.

I understand, but do not agree with, the desire for obsolete items to be cheap even if they are rare. The reason I do not agree is that the rarity system is designed to make rare items rare on the CM battlefield. Just because something is relatively worthless combat-wise doesn't mean there should be swarms of them if it was rarely (hint ) on the field.

I am oppossed to the Close Combat system of rarity. It is more interesting, IMHO, to allow a person to spend what they want on an overpriced item rather than not allowing them to buy it at all. Provides a very nice amount of surprise, I think.

[Edit for Mike]

The rarity system spefically uses numbers for determining rarity, at least AFAIK. There's the base point cost for combat power, then rarity based on "usage" or some such at the time (month, year). And if using variable rarity, then some possible percentage mark- up/down.

[ October 01, 2002, 02:53 AM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Flesh:

You could allow the rarity values of units to determine whether or not they are available in a QB. The points cost could then reflect the combat effectiveness of the units.

Yes. I think what we are seeing is a consequence of using cost adjustment, rather than availabily, to represent rarity. Hopefully there is a workaround.

[Foxbat]

I don't think that representing rarity through cost is a problem in itself, sure it can make obsolete items expensive meaning they are unlikely to be picked by players. But that's the point isn't it?

Such a unit/weapon can still show up in a pre-cooked secnario, and it's a better option then giving discounts on obsolete equipment, which will slew the balance towards buying them in ahistoric and unbalancing numbers (especially if the opposition is mainly inf being able to buy xtra guns/tanks/mortars or a mix of ubertanks and mopping up tanks will be quite nasty).

One possible "fix" or option would be to give obsolete equipment a small chance of getting a bigger discount, to simulate left-overs, 'gefundeness Fressen' and stuff forced on your unit.

[Foxbat]

Forgot the main point [duh]. The problem isn't rarity itself but cases were equipment inherent to a unit get high rarity penalties, that shouldn't happen as the fact that these weapons are inherent should generally mean they are available.

[Guest Mike]

Cameron I don't know what the CC rarity system is, however I am completely familiar with army lists used in miniature wargaming.

Typically they allow (or require) a certain number of troops and specify maximums, and then the cost reflects the fightign ability.

Only 1 set I know of varies this for WW2, where the cost of any heavy tanks in excess of any mediums fielded, or later or up-gunned or up-armoured vehicles in excess of the total of previous versions have their cost doubled.

For example, in a pre-gunpowder era - a Norman army might have to have 10-30 units of Knights, while its Saxon opponent would have to have 20-50 elements of Fyrd Spearmen and 6-15 elements of Huscarles.

In WW2 a player fieldsing Tigers or Panthers would have to field an equal number of P4's or P3's (in the particular rules I'm thinking of), or if he was fielding P4F2's in 1942 he'd also have to field an equal number of F1's or E's to avoid paying double points for the better vehicles.

[Silvio Manuel]

(yikes)

[ October 01, 2002, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[buckshyesh]

Instead of having rarity expressed through cost increases, couldn't the rare items on the list of available equipment each have a very good chance of being grayed out.

So when you go to purchase, you'll have your regular squads and tanks, and then some of the rare units will be available and some won't. And when you purchase a rare unit, the game could calculate whether or not another one would be available.

Is this even do-able?

[Sergei]

Well, having rare items unavailable - that's in use in SP:WAW. It works nicely there, except for a buggy code. Having prices reflecting the use value - that's already in the game, just don't use the rarity rules (as in CMBO).

But anyway, yeah, the main issue here is, why a rare thing should be included in a typical formation (airborne platoon). I think formations should have just a generic rarity value, instead of other things coming cheaper and some others more expensive. Otherwise, a rare unit should be dropped from the formation.

By the way, do you know if the AI, when picking things, pays attention to rarity of things? AI might be disadvantaged if it doesn't give a damn about paying triple for that SturmTiger...