Nemesis Lead Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Will artillery be "cheaper" in CMSF QBs? In CMAK, CMBO, and CMBB, artillery was too expensive and was therefore not represented to the extent that it should have been in battles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 There are no "points". Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Originally posted by rune: There are no "points".Then how do you "purchase" units in QBs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 By units, and it shows the rarity. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincere Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Can you expand on that Rune? What stops one QB player buying an uber army? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameroon Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Dear, dear vincere - you've asked in entirely the wrong fashion. You're supposed to make indignant noises about how they've obviously screwed up the system (not to mention gone to a modern theater!) and how its sad that another good publisher has lost its way. This rational "Wait, could you please elaborate" will obviously get you no where. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 I am working on finishing a scenario and a new build. I'll get back to you in a day ro so. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Originally posted by Nemesis Lead: Will artillery be "cheaper" in CMSF QBs? In CMAK, CMBO, and CMBB, artillery was too expensive and was therefore not represented to the extent that it should have been in battles. My guess is that US artillery would be more "expensive" since - well I assume - it is more deadly and more accurate than the WWII versions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Then again, it might be cheaper because it's easier then ever for infantry to dial home for arty support. WW2 artillery support was much harder to come by for the average infantry man thus more costly to reflect this difficulty. Now that artillery support can be requested at much lower levels the price might drop accordingly to reflect that greater availability. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 well I was thinking price was based on the power/strength/availability of the unit. So artillery being more available would - IMO - drive the price up. But this is probably all moot anyway based on what rune said above 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 You're confusing things. Point value in CMx1 has always been based on a unit's utility and killing power on the battlefield, not its relative commonness or ease of access (in the case of artillery). So if CMx2 uses a similar point system to CMx1, if US artillery is easier and faster to access, this would make it *more* expensive, not less. The rarity system was a 2nd optional layer added to give some weight to the relative frequency of various weapon systems. But this is all moot since, according to Rune, there are no "points" in CMx2. I must admit, I'm rather confused by this comment. If CMx2 is going to include the capability for quick battles with player-selected forces *at all*, what's the alternative to some kind of system that sets a value on various units, in order to define and limit how much of what a player can purchase? I mean, you can call them "force allocation units", or "delicious bits of enemy-killing goodness", or whatever, but they're effectively points, no matter what you call them. Curious for more details. . . Cheers, YD [ June 18, 2007, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 I like "delicious bits of enemy-killing goodness/" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Perhaps it costs you victory points to use artillery so you are not going to want to. The same reverse logic could apply to getting units too. You can have them but there is a major downside to losing them. The US forces will be so much more powerful than the Syrian forces anyway - will more matter? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Yes; I can see as system like that, where you don't purchase *artillery* directly with points, but you get arty support typical for the infantry/armored force you have purchased, and you pay a price for actually using the artillery, to discourage you from using it unrealistically. For example, maybe you purchase a US Styker Coy, you get "typical" artillery support; perhaps 120mm mortars, and maybe 155mm Arty, albiet at a much longer delay. Maybe you can also call on air power to drop JDAMS, but there's considerable delay. Maybe if you "purchase" FOs and/or FACS, to you get better response time and accuracy from appropriate off-map support. And, as Caesar notes, if you pay a VP cost for each shell fired and bomb dropped, you can't use it indiscriminately; you have to wait for a good target, where the enemy units destroyed, or other objectives gained, offsets the point loss. But this isn't really a "no points" system; it's just a variation a points system, where the cost of arty support is factored into the cost of other units, with the added twist that you pay a higher cost for use. Not a bad system, actually. . . Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Regret to inform you that not one of you has it right. I didn't sign an NDA so I can now disclose that the actual system will show an in-game cost meter inspired by the real time accounting in THX 1138. Everything the Allied player does will be meticulously accounted for (to include outrageous war profits), and if you bust the budget, you get no help until Congress passes yet another Emergency Supplemental Bill. Budgets will be tied to assigned mission and/or force size employed, and collateral damage will be treated as a post mission cost debit (and a credit for Halliburton, Bechtel, et al., since collateral damage = rebuilding contracts = profits). Drop a MOAB, if you like, but remember, you may not have hand grenades when you need them! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Rune is correct. There are totally different concepts going on within the game as a whole. In the CMx1 sense there are no "points". You also don't purchase individual units like CMx1 either. There is also no CMx1 system of Rarity at work as well. The implication here is that these things are still going on, just not the way you guys are thinking of them. In other words, things are done "under the hood". The budget for purchasing units is based on the QB settings, but you don't get to see that. CM also has a sense of the value of units, but as formations and not as individal units. This is a more "fuzzy" concept and therefore not the strict math system used in CMx1 (which, as we know, some people had heart attacks over from screaming at us that a this or that tank should be 2.4566 points lower than some other tank:). Again, this is under the hood. As for Rarity, it is again a fuzzy concept that enters into the equations under the hood. What the new CMx2 system does is make the system a lot less number crunchy and instead a lot more about a realistic, balanced force for yourself as well as the other side. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 See, when asked nicely, I can bring out the big guns to answer questions. Also, don't forget, you can have 2 exact same forces fight it out. Skill with a little luck will determine the winner, not hand picking the sturmtruppen squad mit spatzel und three panzerkampfwagen III mit kitschensink with an artillery spotter with 75mm. Nope, now you have to use proper tactics to win, especially if an even force. T55MVs vs T-55 mvs. Ahhhhhhhhh Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 OK, so AIUI, the game has "fuzzy points" and "fuzzy rarity" under the hood, but the player doesn't actually see or deal with them directly. Fuzzy Invisible Points. Curious. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Hmm but half of the fun in CM's QBs was surprising your opponent and being surprised by some exotic unit selection or unpredictable force mix (variable rarity permitting). Well, anyway, SF wont have that many units and some of them can be pretty unbalancing (kornets, Abraams) so this forced balance might be a good thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT_56M Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 That makes total sense. Instead of basing things in a QB off of the player's desired TO&E, the player instead chooses the force from a realistic TO&E. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Awh, what a disappointment - not with the game, i was hoping to see tears and hear gasps and witness the gnashing of teeth when word finally got out that CMx1 points system was gone! You guys are being entirely too level-headed. Not entertaining at all to witness 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 MikeyD, I hear you. Was rather dismayed that my "leak" which was practically a modest proposal got no response, either. Thought it was rather droll myself. Glad you're part of the graphics team on CMSF! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterLorre86 Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 I will miss the point system. However this system sound like an interesting replacement. Sometimes i like to just pick my perfect force, and not being able to do that will take some getting used to. From the description though, it sounds like it makes for more realistic and balanced gameplay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becket Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Would it be possible to get a walkthrough/example of how force selection will work in QBs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Originally posted by rune: Also, don't forget, you can have 2 exact same forces fight it out. T55MVs vs T-55 mvs. AhhhhhhhhhExact same forces? That T55MV sure looks more menacing than a T-55 mv. 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.