KNac Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 I was reading the CMMC engineering rules for a campaing some m8s are going to do and wondered if CMBB will have more defensive contructions. As far as I know, in CMBB there will be the same defenses and a few more like trenches and the possiblity to place craters in the scen editor. I wonder if the guys at BFC could give us a little preview of other defenses (if there are). The list of possible defenses can be very large: -larger minefields -sand bags -sand bag shelters -dug in shelters -anti tank trenches -more types of bunkers -dragon's teeth I would like too if: -those types of contructions don't count on the unit counter. I mean, in very large scenarios (regimental size! i have done them in CMBO)or not so large if u want to make large walls of defenses etc your unit counter can go very low very fast. -those units don´t cost so much money as they do now. an other question is about bridging operations, there will be any representation of pontoon b ridges of different load values (light, heavy, medium) or size (longer, shorter, etc) if no it could be a nice job for modders. there is any mod of pontoon bridges in CMBO? well, just that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted June 19, 2002 Author Share Posted June 19, 2002 I forgot to say that those kind of constructions shouldn´t count too because they are not very "dangerous" to the FPS (because are low poly-count and because are very similar to any other terrain shape) plz bump! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by KNac: -those units don´t cost so much money as they do now.It's worth keeping in mind when discussing the purchase of units that their "price" has nothing to do with the economics of their production in the real world. Those numbers represent the game designers estimate of their effectiveness on the battlefield. They are essentially a game balancing device. That said, I think it is recognized that the existing costs for things like wire and mines are undeservedly high. I believe those costs have been adjusted downward for CM:BO, which should be more in line with what you are asking for. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austrian Strategist Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: It's worth keeping in mind when discussing the purchase of units that their "price" has nothing to do with the economics of their production in the real world. Actually I would prefer unit prices being directly related to production costs. This would be- 1- More realistic. 2- Solving the issue of 'Rarity'. Those items that were common were so because they could be produced cheaply in large numbers. 3- Solving many play balance issues. King Tigers and such would be insanely expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 I tend to agree with you, AS, but the Powers That Be have a different take on matters. [shrug] Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Actually I would prefer unit prices being directly related to production costs. This would be- 1- More realistic. 2- Solving the issue of 'Rarity'.Wouldn't that totally screw up the QB system? Shouldn't the opponents have forces with balanced _combat_ effectiveness? Not equal price tags? And for a scenario it doesn't matter, does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightGauntt Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 [ June 19, 2002, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: NightGauntt ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightGauntt Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 changed my mind not worth discussing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austrian Strategist Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Tarqulene: Shouldn't the opponents have forces with balanced _combat_ effectiveness? Not equal price tags? I don´t think it would be so unbalanced. Equal price tags should mean similar combat effectiveness most of the time. If it turns out one side is disadvantaged, give them more money (similar to Attacker getting more money). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Austrian Strategist: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys: It's worth keeping in mind when discussing the purchase of units that their "price" has nothing to do with the economics of their production in the real world. Actually I would prefer unit prices being directly related to production costs. This would be- 1- More realistic. 2- Solving the issue of 'Rarity'. Those items that were common were so because they could be produced cheaply in large numbers. 3- Solving many play balance issues. King Tigers and such would be insanely expensive.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 YankeeDog, you're right. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 yeah, what Yankee Dog said, plus keep in mind that your average P-51 or P-47 fighter bomber was 50,000 to 100,000 USD at the time, which means that it would be in the same price league as a tank is right now. And artillery would what? the price of all the guns of the battery, or just the price of the limited number of incoming shells? the "prices" have to be adjusted manually by BTS...ooops, "Battlefront.com", it's the only way to make it work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austrian Strategist Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by M Hofbauer: yeah, what Yankee Dog said, plus keep in mind that your average P-51 or P-47 fighter bomber was 50,000 to 100,000 USD at the time, which means that it would be in the same price league as a tank is right now. And artillery would what? the price of all the guns of the battery, or just the price of the limited number of incoming shells? Yankee has good points; on the other hand I do not understand the two problems above. -Do you mean that fighter bombers would be very common? They were: The main reason why the Allies won the campaign. Goering probably should have come up with a set of Fionn Rules. -All units in a CM game are 'rented'. Therefore: Artillery = price of the Battery; yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Screw the pricing system. Play scenarios. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austrian Strategist Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by wwb_99: Screw the pricing system. Play scenarios. Oh no. It´s fun to pick your own force. And in the final analysis, I will be happy with any pricing system that comes close to giving historic results. If 'Rarity' does that, I give it my blessings. Edit: Btw, back to the original topic: What spectacular new Fortifications are in? (My favourite would be the 4-storey-deep super-bunker-systems of Sevastopol; to knock them out we would also need the Railgun Dora; how about that? ) [ June 20, 2002, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Austrian Strategist ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Austrian Strategist: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by wwb_99: Screw the pricing system. Play scenarios. Oh no. It´s fun to pick your own force. And in the final analysis, I will be happy with any pricing system that comes close to giving historic results. If 'Rarity' does that, I give it my blessings. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austrian Strategist Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Originally posted by wwb_99: But its more fun to play on a decent looking, well crafted map and have things like reinforcements and true suprises. Hmmm; maybe random maps do look good, and QBs with reinforcements are in; who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barleyman Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Come on! Taxpayers pay for the guns, not field commanders I don't think your average battalion commander has that much say in what kind of hardware is shipped your way.. Sure, you can request JagdPanthers, but.. IMHO, rarity coupled with buying vehicles and guns in batteries and sections instead of ala carte should make it a little bit less boy's own tale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Originally posted by wwb_99: Screw the pricing system. Play scenarios.I agree, but doesn't the pricing system affect scenarios too? True, in a scenario you don't 'buy' your units at the start, but you do still 'pay' for them when they die, and the cost you pay is based on the pricing system. IIRC. Regards JonS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by wwb_99: [qb]Screw the pricing system. Play scenarios.I agree, but doesn't the pricing system affect scenarios too? True, in a scenario you don't 'buy' your units at the start, but you do still 'pay' for them when they die, and the cost you pay is based on the pricing system.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted June 21, 2002 Author Share Posted June 21, 2002 good anwers. kep bumping maybe the guys at battlefront wil anwer us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted June 21, 2002 Share Posted June 21, 2002 Originally posted by JonS: I agree, but doesn't the pricing system affect scenarios too? True, in a scenario you don't 'buy' your units at the start, but you do still 'pay' for them when they die, and the cost you pay is based on the pricing system.Hey, now there's a neat idea. What if the loss 'cost' of a unit was dependent of it's overall value as a fighting unit, rather than it's effectiveness on the CM battlefield, as QB purchase price is (and current loss cost)? Admittedly, loss 'cost' is already tweaked a little bit for some units like heavy weapons and vehicle crews cost additional points if you lose them, I suppose refelecting the additional value these specially trained troops have, and discouraging their use as 'suicide scouts'. There are some units that don't really see their full potential on the CM battlefield. SP artillery, for example, isn't really intended to be used as a DF weapon - it was certainly used as such, but much of it's usfulness was when used as and indirect fire weapon - the fact that it was mobile meant that it could be moved quickly forward to help support an advance, for example. In terms of "overall" unit value, one can argue that Priest, Sextons and Hummels should have a higher "loss cost" than their QB purchase price. The big place where I think this might help the game is with lightly or completely unarmored transport vehicles. These units have very limited utility on the CM battlefield, but in fact were very useful overall, facilitating mobility and communication for an army. Giving them a somewhat higher "loss cost" would discourage tactics such as the infamous "jeep rush". I imagine regimental command would be really pissed if a batallion commander lost every jeep in the motor pool in an effort to uncover enemy AT guns!!. Cheers, YD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 Originally posted by YankeeDog: I imagine regimental command would be really pissed if a batallion commander lost every jeep in the motor pool in an effort to uncover enemy AT guns!!Not really. It would be a relatively cheap way to get an enemy to reveal the position of his AT assets. In fact, it is part of the Patton mythos that once he ordered a lieutenant to get in his jeep and "Drive down that road until you get blown up and then come back and report to me!" Michael [ June 21, 2002, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by YankeeDog: I imagine regimental command would be really pissed if a batallion commander lost every jeep in the motor pool in an effort to uncover enemy AT guns!!Not really. It would be a relatively cheap way to get an enemy to reveal the position of his AT assets. In fact, it is part of the Patton mythos that once he ordered a lieutenant to get in his jeep and "Drive down that road until you get blown up and then come back and report to me!" Michael</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 22, 2002 Share Posted June 22, 2002 Originally posted by YankeeDog: Snort. I knew it!! Patton was a gamey bastard!!'Tis true. He'd do anything to win. Stole gas from other armies. Why he even started preparations to pull divisions out of the line in Lorrain to send them into the Bulge before Ike gave the order. That's sneaky if you ask me! Like getting a double move before your opponent gets a move. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts