Michael Dorosh Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Will all the guys complaining about lack of point purchase in CM:SF please present your mathematically perfect system that everyone can agree on? Because some of the whining about M-18 Hellcats and Hetzers in CM:BO still resonates on this board. If anyone can present a logical and balanced system for point purchase that they prove can be workable, fun, and manageable, I'd love to see it presented here in Excel or whatever format you choose. I'm deadly serious. If you think it can be done - prove it. Doesn't require any coding. It's not an unreasonable request. You'd be doing the community a favour, and going a long way to convincing BF.C that they "should" include it, by proving first that it "can" be done. Oh Michael it doesn't even have to BE points-based. But if you want points, fine. AFV: Light armor = 10 pts Light gun = 10 pts Coax MG = 5 pts Bow MG = 5 pts Med gun = 15 pts Med armor = 15 pts Heavy gun = 20 pts Heavy armor = 20 pts Turreted = 10 pts Fast turret = 15 pts Slow = 5 pts Med = 7 pts Fast = 10 pts There you go. -dale </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem: Oh Michael it doesn't even have to BE points-based. But if you want points, fine. AFV: Light armor = 10 pts Light gun = 10 pts Coax MG = 5 pts Bow MG = 5 pts Med gun = 15 pts Med armor = 15 pts Heavy gun = 20 pts Heavy armor = 20 pts Turreted = 10 pts Fast turret = 15 pts Slow = 5 pts Med = 7 pts Fast = 10 pts There you go. -dale Okay, now factor in training (Elite, Regular, etc.) and Fitness, and the various equipment states for each unit type. Smartass. Does the Peng Thread know you've escaped? :confused: :eek: </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I am just thinking of your feelings when all your peers tell you what a retard you are for daring to suggest an M1A2 Abrams is worth only two T-62s and maybe you need to pick up a book about Chobham armour and the penetrative characteristics of sabotblahblahblah... But fire away, you'll be doing us all a great service.But how is that any different that the points in the CMx1 games? eg, can 5 20mm armored cars go up against a Tiger? No chance at all. But they are about equal in points. And no doubt it is a lot of work to implement. And no doubt something would have to be cut to put that in. But - if I understand them correctly - they dont really even want it in; they think it is better without. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kineas Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I'm deadly serious. If you think it can be done - prove it. Doesn't require any coding. It's not an unreasonable request. You'd be doing the community a favour, and going a long way to convincing BF.C that they "should" include it, by proving first that it "can" be done. Doable, by complicating the system. The first thing would be to enable moddable-downloadable scoring-schemes. So if someone doesn't like something he could create new one and share it on the internet. There could be multipliers for handicap (already is), for map balance, for mission balance etc. You could use different prices for purchasing and different for losing the unit etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Originally posted by David Chapuis: And no doubt it is a lot of work to implement. And no doubt something would have to be cut to put that in. But - if I understand them correctly - they dont really even want it in; they think it is better without. Well, to be fair, I think that all we know right now is that they think CM:SF is better without it. I don't think we know yet whether or not they think a WWII (or any other historical period they'd like to do) version would be better without it. I certainly hope that they don't think it would though. I wouldn't touch a WWII version that didn't have as detailed a purchase option as the CMx1 games do with a ten foot pole. No way in hell. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Dale, Are we done now?Not even close How would you account for a particular type of round that can slice through any tank in the game? By any score an Abrams is worth about 20 times as many points as a T-72. But if I have 80 T-72s and you have 4, how long do you think you'd be able to keep your Abrams? So OK... we adjust all the equations so the Abrams is worth only 4 times as much as a T-72. So now it's 16 T-72s against 4 Abrams. A much fairer fight, but now what to do about the massive HE rounds those T-72s can toss out? Have you had an infantry unit hit by a T-72's HE round? It ain't pretty. So how do you account for that. And I'll I'm doing here is scratching the surface of the mounds of complaints YOU GUYS (generalizing, I don't remember which 100 of you kept on our asses about it ) kept poking at us. I said it before, I'd rather jamp forks in my eyes and slam my head repeatedly on the desk before I go through that experience again. No way are we going to do this. Punto. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Dale, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Are we done now?Not even close How would you account for a particular type of round that can slice through any tank in the game? By any score an Abrams is worth about 20 times as many points as a T-72. But if I have 80 T-72s and you have 4, how long do you think you'd be able to keep your Abrams? So OK... we adjust all the equations so the Abrams is worth only 4 times as much as a T-72. So now it's 16 T-72s against 4 Abrams. A much fairer fight, but now what to do about the massive HE rounds those T-72s can toss out? Have you had an infantry unit hit by a T-72's HE round? It ain't pretty. So how do you account for that. And I'll I'm doing here is scratching the surface of the mounds of complaints YOU GUYS (generalizing, I don't remember which 100 of you kept on our asses about it ) kept poking at us. I said it before, I'd rather jamp forks in my eyes and slam my head repeatedly on the desk before I go through that experience again. No way are we going to do this. Punto. Steve </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-E Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I am just thinking of your feelings when all your peers tell you what a retard you are for daring to suggest an M1A2 Abrams is worth only two T-62s If they were my peers, they WOULD be retards and would KNOW an M1A2 IS worth only two T-62's! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: A much fairer fight, but now what to do about the massive HE rounds those T-72s can toss out? Have you had an infantry unit hit by a T-72's HE round? It ain't pretty. So how do you account for that. And I'll I'm doing here is scratching the surface of the mounds of complaints YOU GUYS (generalizing, I don't remember which 100 of you kept on our asses about it ) kept poking at us. I said it before, I'd rather jamp forks in my eyes and slam my head repeatedly on the desk before I go through that experience again. No way are we going to do this. Punto. And what about ability weighting: Ability against hard targets? Ability against soft targets? Instead of one single value, there could be several categories, someone can spend his "points": i.e. soft, hard And each category has to stay below the chosen threshold. I.e. You have 100 points for hard target capability, 1000 for soft. So a T72 could rate 2 against hard targets. But 9 against soft. A M1A2 10 against hard, 9 against soft. And so on. That way, if you decide to get 16 T72 to match the hard target capabilities of the oponent, you will be forced to choose less infantry or weapons with less soft target capabilities. Would that solve th problem? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 I predict an ongoing debate the likes of which bren guns have never seen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 What about bren guns on tripods...no match. Anyone remember the grazing fire debates...ah those were the days, right clicking on menus, buying my units, my mother catching me generating random maps, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetchez la Vache Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 10 tripod-mounted Brens = 3 M42 HMG Next. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelmia Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Maybe the devs should let purchasing be moddable. Then the players can decide how much everything is worth. It'll get resolved pretty quickly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cougar_DK Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: As far as I am concerned I don't need a point purchasing system. Just make a little easier to build quick battles with forces I want. I play against the AI or friends and we can work out the balance ourselves. Agreed, I don't care about points and balanced battles. I just want to take what units I will use for the comming battle and not like now with 3 Syrian Spotters and no arty.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: What about bren guns on tripods...no match. Anyone remember the grazing fire debates...ah those were the days, right clicking on menus, buying my units, my mother catching me generating random maps, etc. The T34 turret armor debates still wake me up at night. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Well, just take the real world price (perhaps weightened by economic performance of the respective side) and be done with it! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Disclaimer: I did not think to hard before posting this Please don't flame! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetchez la Vache Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 No flame here. I wondered about the exact same thing! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Originally posted by dalem: So many games have done it, paper and electronic, including the CM ones, that it's bizarre that you'd imply that it can't be done at all. You know this far better than I, I should think. -dale I never said it couldn't be done; I just know who does want to do it - and who doesn't. If it's easy, then someone in the community can draw up a list - Fionn did a reasonably good job with the Short-76 rules - and present it for all of us to use. I don't think there would be agreement on anyone's system, but hey, draw one up and let's have a look at it and see how it works in practice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Originally posted by Rollstoy: Well, just take the real world price (perhaps weightened by economic performance of the respective side) and be done with it! Best regards, Thomm Now THAT is cool. Do Syrian irregulars get paid salary, or hourly wage? :cool: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: No way are we going to do this [QB purchases]. Punto. Steve Steve, You already have QB in the game, so you must balance the forces for these, right? How are you doing it currently? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: If it's easy, then someone in the community can draw up a list - Fionn did a reasonably good job with the Short-76 rules - and present it for all of us to use. I don't think there would be agreement on anyone's system, but hey, draw one up and let's have a look at it and see how it works in practice. Exactly, if BF doesn't want to deal with a point system, fine...but at least let there be a way to frigging pick the units! How you are supposed to represent an asymmetrical fight without being able to customize the force as the Syrians, I will never know [ July 30, 2007, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: Thunderbird ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedDevil Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 All this talk about comparing the price/value of units based on the rod, stroke and bore of the engine over how many teeth the transmission main drive gear has is BS. BF didn't do this type of comparing in the CMx1 games did they? Are you telling me you spent hours deciding the value of a 20mm AA gun, over the 105 Artillery? I find this a chuckle and some real POOR PR commenting from the professionals at BF. If you can't comment without calling people smartasses or telling them to do it themselves in every response, you should STFU IMO. I paid money for the product, I think I should get something worth paying for. You playtesters got it for free and think you can harp all you want on the greatness of this and that and how everything the PAYING customers want or suggest is crap? You're being paid to do the work, not me or joe or tom and if you're going to do it, at least have the courtesy do it right or at least something close to resembling right.. As of now this whole deceiving cover up of using the Combat Mission name to sell a RTS that's NOTHING like the original concept game is a petty rip off imitation marketing ploy that has cost many of us devout Combat Mission gamers hard earned money. We trusted BF to produce a great CM addition but, We've been mislead and WE paid for it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melnibone Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Originally posted by RedDevil: We trusted BF to produce a great CM addition but, We've been mislead and WE paid for it. Next time wait for the demo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rollstoy: Well, just take the real world price (perhaps weightened by economic performance of the respective side) and be done with it! Best regards, Thomm Now THAT is cool. Do Syrian irregulars get paid salary, or hourly wage? :cool: </font> 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.