MiB Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Since Steve has mentioned that he will not put the effort in to get a points-based system (at least, this is what I have heard; if I am mistaken, someone please correct me and thanks.)... Why not do some of that ourselves? It'd take a huge load of work, I'd imagine, but it sounds like play balancing would be something people would want to do anyway. Any ideas on how that could be done or people who would be interested in it? Normally how I do "quick battles" is that my friend and I load up a map we want to play, clear out all the forces and purchase new ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hev Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Because WE shouldnt be making THEIR game for them. I know its been said before (a million times) but BFC should be the people putting this in the game, and IMO i reckon thats why the new patch is taking so long. [ December 02, 2007, 04:54 AM: Message edited by: Hev ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'Rogers Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Well it would probably be the done the old way. People would modify the system in place in CMx1, and then just agree to use that. Of course that was easier because there was some kind of base. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiB Posted December 2, 2007 Author Share Posted December 2, 2007 Originally posted by Hev: Because WE shouldnt be making THEIR game for them. I know its been said before (a million times) but BFC should be the people putting this in the game, and IMO i reckon thats why the new patch is taking so long. I understand the sentiment entirely. But I'm going to play this game and I'd like to have a points buy system. If BFC isn't going to provide one, I'll just have to rig one up myself. I'd rather do that then just sit and pout about BFC providing me with something entirely different than what I thought I was getting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 If it can be done, do it. I'd wait for 1.05 and see what transpires with that first. That should be the definitive statement on BFC's position on changes to the core CMSF game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Deuce Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Just curious if anyone has tried coming up with something on their own for this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 It would all have to be done manually out of the game and a third person would be needed to edit/add units to the map. First somebody or a group would need to make a point system document for all the units in game, a good bit including Marines and Brits. Which is of course agreed upon or will become the standard. (good luck getting wargamers agreeing on points for each unit) Then it would go something like this: 1) Two players agree on a map and send their units chosen document to a third party. 2) Then the third party checks to make sure units listed fall under the chosen point limit and then adds the units to the scenario. 3) Third party sends out scenario to both players and there you have it. A real QB in CMSF. Well, maybe we would need to change the name to Long Process Battle(LPB) instead of QB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 I don't do points and with the way the game is designed right now I'm pretty sure it ain't going to happen - not saying its wrong but just not my thing. The solution is pretty much going to be fan generated. There are plenty of rulesets out there which could be adapted I would reckon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Deuce Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Thanks for the feedback. The final product would probably not be something for general public use but something for me use as a guide for a sort of meta-campaign to implement a replacement/reinforcement system. I was hoping someone had already started trying to flesh out something on their own I could build on or use as a basis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartan Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Its a pity we dont have a points system to encourage more equal battles. A lot of people comment on this very fact when comparing the game to CMBB and CMAK. Unless you are able to design a complete scenario. How does anyone rank ladder games without it? Mike 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falconander Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 This could be done in excel easily enough. I'd build a rough draft if you are interested. You could post the raw data here and people could agree/disagree with the stats. I use Excel 2007. The problem is getting all of the names of the units imported into excel. From there you could pick your army and it would do the rest for you. Not by my CMSF right now but you would need to assign points to a unit like. Sniper 15 pts Elite 4 pts Excellent equipment 3pts High Motivation 3 pts I forget what the options are but you get the drift. We could have a thread for each army and list the points there wilth an open discussion... Just my thoughts.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Point systems are so damned difficult to work with because as soon as you proclaim a value for something someone will make a case for it being wrong. That's been our experience Anybody making their own system is immune to this sort of thing, by and large, because a) only a tiny number of people are using it and it's voluntary. We neither luxury. And no, allowing people to use their own point systems within the game is absolutely not an option we want. The good news is the new QB system, which will appear for Normandy, will have a discernible point system. But it won't be a singular point system, nor will it function the same way as the CMx1 system did. It should give people what they want with far better balanced forces between players and the given battle parameters. We're trying to finalize the design now, as a matter of fact. When it's been kicked around by the testers some we'll let you know what the system is like in detail. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falconander Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Steve, While understanding your points, every game out there has some form of a point system. Take the Total War series. I have to spend gold (points) to purchase my units and more gold (points) to upgrade them and the like. I don't believe that anyone ever stopped and said hey wait a minute those crossbow men should cost such and such gold. ...well they may have but you learn to accept the unit cost and drive on... Though I understand there are a lot more Grogs and the like that haunt this forum and will cite archaic transcipts from a German officer during WWII that his Panzer deserved a better showing... Anyway, shying away from points is like shying away from choosing a 3-d model of some tank because people won't agree with your depiction. Fear of people not agreeing with you has never stopped you yet... Though it is good that there will be some form of system for the Normandy game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Deuce Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 This could be done in excel easily enough. I'd build a rough draft if you are interested. You could post the raw data here and people could agree/disagree with the stats. I use Excel 2007. The problem is getting all of the names of the units imported into excel. From there you could pick your army and it would do the rest for you. Not by my CMSF right now but you would need to assign points to a unit like. Sniper 15 pts Elite 4 pts Excellent equipment 3pts High Motivation 3 pts I forget what the options are but you get the drift. We could have a thread for each army and list the points there wilth an open discussion... Just my thoughts.... Excel was what I was thinking of using. I am looking at doing this as a "for myself" type project so hopefully no one would take it to be something of a "standard". I am coming back to CMSF after my initial disappointment (no need to go into details on that) and from the digging around I have been doing the last few weeks I can see it has come along way. Because of that "gap" I am way behind the curve on coming up to speed on what is in the game as far as equipment. I mean, I know whats in there BUT have not yet figured out things such as what version tank you get by setting the quality to poor and then choosing a Tank Company as opposed to setting it to excellent and seeing what equipment you get that way. I know the manual and some other sources go into this but I am looking for a little more depth to the info. If I had that information in excel I think the points formula would be much easier to come up with, even if only in generalities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Deuce Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Point systems are so damned difficult to work with because as soon as you proclaim a value for something someone will make a case for it being wrong. That's been our experience Anybody making their own system is immune to this sort of thing, by and large, because a) only a tiny number of people are using it and it's voluntary. We neither luxury. And no, allowing people to use their own point systems within the game is absolutely not an option we want. Truthfully, I am not even sure where to start on this, just wanted to make sure I wasn't duplicating anyone's existing effort. I guess the best way to start would be to put together a full listing of all the "units" available in the game (for the modules to date) and get them listed in excel. From there work out the possible settings that would affect a units performance/abilities and go from there. :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 From there work out the possible settings that would affect a units performance/abilities and go from there. :eek: mmm ... I'd suggest setting strawman values for "average-average-average" settings for all units, then modifying prices for variables by a set percentage Eg, veteran cost +20% of base price. Fanatic costs +40% of base price. Limited ammo costs -15% of base price. So a veteran fanatic with limited ammo costs 20 + 40 -15 = 145% of the base price. Or sumfink. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Falconander, While understanding your points, every game out there has some form of a point system. Take the Total War series. I have to spend gold (points) to purchase my units and more gold (points) to upgrade them and the like. I don't believe that anyone ever stopped and said hey wait a minute those crossbow men should cost such and such gold. That's because most games are far more simplistic. Much more of a rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock kinda thing. (let's see how many geeks here get this reference ). Give me a game with 20 unit types and I could probably come up with a point based system that almost everybody would find agreeable. The issue we have is that's not what CM is. We have probably 500 or more unique units to price out, some of which have value not because of what they physically are but rather what they can do. For example, a JTAC is horrible infantry unit, so if it is caught in a firefight it's pretty much toast. But if the JTAC is there directing aircraft it's worth probably more than any unit on the map at that time. Add to this... ...well they may have but you learn to accept the unit cost and drive on... Wargamers don't move on They also feel that their arguments are superior to any other arguments. Especially ones from us! It's very hard to please 10 people when each one thinks they are right and the other 9 are wrong. Tends to keep things going and going and going, which is a distraction from other things. Anyway, shying away from points is like shying away from choosing a 3-d model of some tank because people won't agree with your depiction. Ah... I didn't say that we were shying away from points We already tried that with CM:SF and it's part of the reason why the system doesn't work. Or more specifically there are points behind the scenes. It's part of why fixing the current system isn't easy, and that's why we decided a long time ago to cut our losses (so to speak) and go with a new system which we think will yield better results overall. What I said was that the new system doesn't use a single point value for a unit. It's very difficult to explain and we're still trying to round off the rough edges, but we're convinced it is far, far better than the CMx1 system, which in turn is seen as vastly superior to the CM:SF system. A single point system is responsible for too many different things at the same time. Competing requirements often mean that a tweak one way fixes one thing and screws up another. Which is why we're not going with a single point system again. Customers arguing over how many points a King Tiger should be compared to a Sherman was annoying but not harmful to the game. Having a point based system that relied on luck to produce a fair and even battle is the real reason we're not going with the old system. As I said, more details when the time is right Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Double Deuce, Welcome back to the fold. I mean, I know whats in there BUT have not yet figured out things such as what version tank you get by setting the quality to poor and then choosing a Tank Company as opposed to setting it to excellent and seeing what equipment you get that way. Each of the three manuals details what the choices are and how to get them. It's towards the back of each manual. That should help you out a lot. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Speaking of stuff in the manual, you guys used to list the maximum and sustained rates of fire for the various mortars, howitzers and guns. You didn't do that in the Brit module manual 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Here you go then: 81mm Mortar Max Rate 12 rds/min 81mm Mortar Sustained Rate 8 rds/min L118 Light Gun Max Rate 6 rds/min L118 Light Gun Sustained Rate 3 rds/min AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun Max Rate 6 rds/min AS-90 Self-Propelled Gun Sustained Rate 2 rds/min 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 ...we're convinced it is far, far better than the CMx1 system, which in turn is seen as vastly superior to the CM:SF system. Steve Gonna hold you to that one. Hell, I'm half tempted to make that my new sig. Seriously though, any room for another beta tester? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Deuce Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Gonna hold you to that one. Hell, I'm half tempted to make that my new sig. Maybe someone should screenshot that post . . for archival purposes . . . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daft Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Setting up a website to use instead of an excelsheet for this kind of work shouldnt be too hard. You could even support templating using xml for custom point schems. Id give it a try if an idea can be agreed upon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falconander Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Whatever you want to do is good with me. Just provide a link to it. I have a hard time building scenarios sometimes since I have no idea if the forces are balanced. A point system, although flawed will partially alleviate that. I'd be happy to share ideas on the system. Don't think we even need a 'blessing' on the idea as long as it is functional and practical for those wanting to play with it. I'd love to have a 'export' ability so the stats and points can be moved out to excel... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daft Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Whatever you want to do is good with me. Just provide a link to it. I have a hard time building scenarios sometimes since I have no idea if the forces are balanced. A point system, although flawed will partially alleviate that. I'd be happy to share ideas on the system. Don't think we even need a 'blessing' on the idea as long as it is functional and practical for those wanting to play with it. I'd love to have a 'export' ability so the stats and points can be moved out to excel... Indeed, exports shouldn't be hard to provide either, but I need a bit more meat on the bones before trying to implement any idea put forth here. I would love to see the existing excel efforts or at least get some more detail on the idea behind them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.