Can't buy troops????

[rune]

Exel,

If you are telling me SP3 does asymmetical warefare, can you please send me some of your drugs? Ditto for world in conflict.

You missed the point, we did it in CMX1, and people complained about this or that unit and cost. It is also a major time sink.

Also, you break the C and C.

Not to say it is ruled out...but this is the first version of this generation. You have played less then 24 hours.

Rune

[Exel]

Originally posted by rune:

Exel,

If you are telling me SP3 does asymmetical warefare, can you please send me some of your drugs? Ditto for world in conflict.

Asymmetrical warfare doesn't make it any different. If you can balance the cost of a King Tiger to the cost of a mine or a sniper, you can balance the cost of an M1 to the cost of an IED or a spy.

I'm not saying it's easy - game balance never is - but I'm saying it has been done before and it is not impossible. I would imagine it to be a lot harder to get the balance right on a few fixed presets. Also with a purchase system the players will find ways to counter imbalances, something that they can't do with preset unit pools.

[rlg85]

I think hardcoding gameplay rules into the game is a major mistake, if two multiplay opponents want to agree to that, fine. But this IS a game, the more flexibility the better.

And as was said, armed units fight with what they have, they dont say "wait! I dont the proper formation, we cant fight now.."

I hate to agree with some of the kneejerk whiners, but I'm disappointed with the current state of the game.

But.. im optimistic for the future.

[PLM2]

A good part of fun in CM is being able to outfox your enemies in purchasing things. Otherwise it might become predictable and the unpredictability is phased out more.

Im really not liking this change either

[RabidRabbit]

Originally posted by Moon:

Janster - comparing CMSF with SP3 doesn't really make much sense.

How about comparing it to every wargame I've ever played online or on tabletop (with the exception of ToW)?

Buying units in the pregame setup is half the fun to many. Not giving the option to do so is a poor decision in my opinion.

I still don't understand how balance would be affected since points could be used for balancing purposes.

[Janster]

I'm going from being hopefuly to downright sceptical and upset about this game.

I just had a show of it infront of my friends, for future sessions, and here are some comments.

'ugly'

'slow' (we're talking serious hardware here)

'wtf no buyable troops?'

'whats the point with action when we can't enjoy or plan anything'

FFS they are trying to compete with Starcraft II, your gonna set yourself up to fail.

Janster

[FuzzyWuzzyBear]

Janster you're really going off the deep-end with complaints. Don't like it? Fine, stop playing it. IMHO, some of these kneejerk complainers have this one niggling feature that they can't seem to stop obsessing about, and it taints the whole experience.

I enjoy the game, and I like both ways of doing MP, buying troops or having preset forces. No two battles are ever the same, else why would I be doing the same ol' F15 vs Su-27 in LockOn all the time?

And realtime doesn't mean arcade, if anything it makes the game harder. Comparing real-time to Starcraft is asinine without some serious elaboration to back it up, which I haven't seen yet. I can see the benefits of both WeGo and real-time, but I prefer RT and personally have no problems controlling a company-size force on Elite level in the campaign so far.

[Childress]

Originally posted by PLM2:

A good part of fun in CM is being able to outfox your enemies in purchasing things. Otherwise it might become predictable and the unpredictability is phased out more.

IMHO, Battlefront wisely discontinued the purchase screen. As an owner of the previous titles I can attest that although it was, in a green eye shade kind of way, intitially fun and challenging troop purchasing degenerated into tedious gaminess over time.

Problem was, that after hundreds of games (speaking as primarily a PBEMer) the real cost to value ratio of every unit becomes general knowledge. The effect is an ever dwindling variety of units on the battlefield; the same 'high value' tank, for example, appearing all the time (Stugs, IIRC, in CMBB). The process was very Darwinian, in a boring sense.

[Leeo]

"But Mumsy, I wanted CHOCOLATE clotted cream with my scones and tea. And you know I hate this bone china, Mums."

STAMP STAMP!

[Thunderbird]

Originally posted by Childress:

IMHO, Battlefront wisely discontinued the purchase screen. As an owner of the previous titles I can attest that although it was, in a green eye shade kind of way, intitially fun and challenging troop purchasing degenerated into tedious gaminess over time.

Problem was, that after hundreds of games (speaking as primarily a PBEMer) the real cost to value ratio of every unit becomes general knowledge. The effect is an ever dwindling variety of units on the battlefield; the same 'high value' tank, for example, appearing all the time (Stugs, IIRC, in CMBB). The process was very Darwinian, in a boring sense.

Why didn't you just play "random" games then? The point is that this was a major feature of the 1st series, and something that I bet will be put back in as quickly as it can be coded/tested...

[ July 28, 2007, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Thunderbird ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by Moon:

I explained this elsewhere but with the current activity on the forum it's probably on page 20 by now... CMSF is using the concept of realistic unit formations (platoon, company, battalion) at the very core of the game. This is needed for the simulation of the entire Command&Control system, which is COMPLETELY different from CMx1. Read the C&C chapter of the manual... you'll see the game with different eyes.

That's the main reason why buying a unit here and a unit there is more or less ruled out at this point. Instead, by setting the various options, you get a realistic mix of units for that. We intend to change and tweak and polish with patches so who knows what things will change, but please understand that there is a VERY good reason for why things are the way they are.

Martin

Wow. I guess Dean Wormer has stamped his foot down and declared "No more fun of any kind!" then?

I hate to be this guy, Martin, but haven't you guys learned one of the biggest lessons from your CMx1 experiences? It's not enough to write the game YOU want - you have to put stuff in there that WE want too.

-dale

[Exel]

Originally posted by Childress:

Problem was, that after hundreds of games (speaking as primarily a PBEMer) the real cost to value ratio of every unit becomes general knowledge. The effect is an ever dwindling variety of units on the battlefield; the same 'high value' tank, for example, appearing all the time (Stugs, IIRC, in CMBB). The process was very Darwinian, in a boring sense.

Like all balance, unit costs can be modified in patches. This is something that all games do. No amount of beta testing can figure out as much as hundreds of players over weeks, months and years. Even Counter-Strike has had some of its weapons made expensive and some cheaper over time.

Even so, do you want to unit selection to be a matter of luck or of skill and careful thought?

And what about balance problems with the preset unit formations? They need to be fixed too, but it takes a lot more effort to edit a formation or a unit selection algorithm than it takes to make a small modification to a unit's cost.

Finally, players can find ways to balance units in ways the developers might never have thought, if they are given the option to do so by buying their own units. With presets they are stuck with what they have, and can't try unit compositions that no one else has thought of. Again, luck vs. innovation and skill.

Don't get me wrong. Preset, realistic unit formations are a great thing. They can be a real equalizer in HvH battles. But it could be an option to picking your tools for the job by yourself - they don't have to be mutually exclusive features.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Someone in the community will eventually come up with a purchase system, the way Fionn invented the Panther-76 rules - if it is felt to be necessary. Will be interesting to watch. It is not even 24 hours since release, after all.

So if any of you have a foolproof pricing system for all the units in CM:SF, post it here - I think we'd all be very interested to see it and test it out. The M1 balancing should be very intriguing, as rune points out.

Oh come on, Michael, that's a weak response. The decision to NOT take the time and effort to develop a viable purchase system does not mean it cannot be done, and daring someone who wants one to do it better is just childish.

Like in the Olden Dayes when people whined about wanting a unit summary screen for CMBO - that could have EASILY been done but Steve said No, for realism and other Steve reasons.

-dale

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Considering the overwhelming thumbs down on the absence of unit purchasing I think chances are high BFC are going to look into including it. Once they sober up, which should be in a week or two.

[Childress]

Like all balance, unit costs can be modified in patches. This is something that all games do. No amount of beta testing can figure out as much as hundreds of players over weeks, months and years. [/QB]

Hehe, nice try. In response to gamers' complaints, BF constantly tinkered with unit costs in CM1-3 in patch after patch. But in a market as efficient as commodity futures, the grogs always stayed a step ahead. And shared their insights on the forum.

After a while, two thirds of the available units disappeared disappeared from PBEM games. Never to be seen again. Troop purchasing is one of those concepts that sound good on paper, but....

[bartleby]

Maybe a balance between real formations and granularity can be struck by allowing purchase at a platoon level only? I agree that some control over the QB units is needed, but CMx1-type buying might not make it.

[Exel]

I can agree on restrictions to what you can buy, so you can't go crazy buying a mix of everything and their aunts. Though a game of different genre, I'd like to point all of you to World in Conflict: there you select a class (in CMSF terms either SBCT/HBCT or Regular/Uncons) according to which you get your pool of units to buy from - you can buy from other "classes" (ie. to buy uncons to reinforce your Republican Guards) but they come at a much higher price than your core units. So, if you want to buy that platoon of Abrams to back up your Stryker Company, you can, but it is a lot more expensive than to buy the Abrams' in their native HBCT organization. A system like that would allow flexibility for player-customizability but within realistic limits.

[David Chapuis]

This is very reminiscent of the PBEM debate.

Now I completely agree that not being able to purchase units is a major letdown. Major letdown. What kept CM on my computer for the last 3 years - something that no other game has ever even gotten close to - is the QBs starting with unit selection. So I sorely want it back.

that being said, nobody is seeming to accept the idea that there might be a something to this C & C issue that martin has mentioned twice.

And that being said - whatever selection process that CMSF uses to pick a force, it would be so much better if BFC would give the user those same options. I mean after the user fills in all the drop-down options, CMSF still has to go out a "pick" a force. So I really have a hard time believing that it cant be done because of C&C. I can believe it is much more limited than CMx1. I can believe it might not be balanced (well neither is auto-pick).

For longevity of this game, I think a lot of people need this. And I like the game.

[konstantine]

Putting my vote in for unit purchasing (though I've already whined about it in another thread or two).

Reason? Mainly the fun factor. I was never someone who cared about the whole 101/121 points for whatever unit. I just liked making fun, even unlikely QBs. Even if it's just available for Blue:Blue/Red:Red, it should be an option.

Two more reasons why it should be in CMSF (although given the explanations by Rune and Moon I guess it's not a deal breaker): CMSF is based on a hypothetical war, so it only needs to be as real as you want it to be, and two: I don't trust the AI to choose the best units. My limited faculties suspect that CMSF is a better game, but me no trust it...yet. Nor did I trust CMx1.

Also, the unit purchase screen was extremely helpful in getting used to unit quality and makeup. Especially in a game where a lot of things are unfamiliar.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

Considering the overwhelming thumbs down on the absence of unit purchasing I think chances are high BFC are going to look into including it. Once they sober up, which should be in a week or two.

Well, to take the other side of the argument I don't think a handful of people on the forum is very "overwhelming". Heck, I'm not even planning on buying SF anytime soon, so I'm taking the thousand foot view.

Based on following the forum threads on game dev here for the last, what, 8 years or so (yikes!), my bet is that unit purchasing was on the white board at first and wiped off pretty early when no one could come up with a workable version.

The point value issue is one problem, although I can think of a couple of ways around it that might have worked after a fashion. And it might have been no more complicated than the decision that for the SF "theater", unit purchases are "philosophically wrong", which doesn't rule out unit purchases for, say, WWII modules.

Still a "wrong" decision, in my personal opinion, but that doesn't mean it was made lightly or without thought to the future.

-dale

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Childress:

After a while, two thirds of the available units disappeared disappeared from PBEM games. Never to be seen again. Troop purchasing is one of those concepts that sound good on paper, but....

Says who?

This argument means nothing. So what that some people only bought stugs. Just as many people would buy a fleet of flak trucks and elite italians.

Some people like completely random games. For QBs I played, nothing was random. I liked being able to pick what I want - it is actually part of the experience - part of the game. Dont discount that for others just because it didnt mean anything to you.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Childress:

After a while, two thirds of the available units disappeared disappeared from PBEM games. Never to be seen again. Troop purchasing is one of those concepts that sound good on paper, but....

Maybe with the people YOU play against. Some of us still like to have fun.

-dale

[rlg85]

C & C issues are one thing, I still don't see why so called "gamey" unit choices should be hardcoded out of the game (remember, this is a game). Seems to me it should be left up the the players involved as far as that goes.

After all, what if we WANT to have a unrealistic battle? I don't see why you the developer should really care about that.

At least let us pick in a similar manner to the editor.After all you can do it in the editor with deletion and whatnot, so that would seem to somewhat make the C&C argument a moot point.

[aka_tom_w]

I fully support the no buying of units.

I love it and I think this system is GREAT.

I would like to suggest, one of the REAL issues, here is in fact the time it would take someone many many man hours of time to invent (from SCRATCH) a point/value/rating/cost system for every unit in the game. It would be an artificial construct at best. I am personally VERY glad that NOT one minute of design and development time was waisted in this gamey and wanton pursuit.

Of course this simply means my war game playing philosophy is completely diametrically opposed to everyone else's here that enjoys the fun of "shopping" for units and cherry picking the best units to "out shop" your opponent before you even get to the battlefield.

Somefolks here clearly consider that one of the most fun aspects of the game. OK that's great, but given the wildly assymetric nature of warfare this game simulates how you place values on availble weapons?? Seriouly. Lets start with the top of the line M1A1 Abrams Lets say its 1000 points as a baseline? What is a Javelin worth? What are two irregulars with an RPG worth? Both can knock the fictional 1000 point Abrams! So realistically HOW do you do it? How do you determine what is worth what on your fictional gamey shopping list?

NOT to mention the WHOLE new set of victory conditions that are available to the scenario designer. (if that matters).

[Sirocco]

One thing that was missing from CMx1, and I can understand why, was loading infantry onto vehicles automatically. Now with the standard force structure there should at least be the option to start loaded. It's plain tedious to have to load them up by hand.