Balancing, Rarity and Outdated Stuff

[Joachim]

Dunno if the rarity concept makes it from CMx1 to CMx2. But if it does, I have some rants.

1.) Consider a scenario balanced by points values: CMAK. PzIIIs vs Shermans. The PzIIIs did a good job in '41 and maybe early '42, but are rather outclassed by the Shermans - at a comparable price.

2.) A QB with units on both sides picked py the computer. Rarity standard. Late '42. The Axis gets Pz38's - with a huge rarity penalty. If your not into balanced games, this won't matter. But 10 Pz38 vs 10 Lees plus an Inf Co each won't be too much fun. Except imagining the face of the Allied player when he finally finds out what he was facing.

3.) A home made campaign system where your core gets more and more expensive. The units stay the same.

Adding more options for rarity would get rid of this:

Rarity: "Decreasing"

The rarity of a unit never increases. If it was the standard workhorse in '41, it will still be cheap in '42.

Rarity(unit x, month T) = min(rarity(unit x, month t) where t = 1..T.

Rarity: "Outdated"

The rarity of a unit is not based on the rarity but only on the age, armor and gun of the unit. A StuGIIIg will age much slower than a PzIIIg. A Panther will never be outdated in WW2.

Rarity: "Standard Outdated"

The standard rarity as of now multiplied with the outdated factor from above.

Dunno if the modules concept will reduce this problem or rarity is in CMx2. But I had already manned rant stations.

Gruß

Joachim

[Brent Pollock]

I still favour the SASL reinforcement method for taking care of rarity. The vehicle type gets charged at a flat rate that represents the average cost for that class (BPV * rarity). Which vehicle model actually shows up is then determined randomly.

For instance (using completely arbitrary BPV & rarity numbers):

- Pz IIIM 100pts 10% of medium tank population

- Pz IVH 150pts 70% of medium tank population

- Pz VD 300pts 20% of medium tank population

The resulting QB medium Tank cost

= 100pts(10%)+150pts(70%)+300pts(20%)

= 175pts

So, if you want a medium tank in a QB, you pay 175 pts, and then you have a:

- 10% chance for a Pz IIIM (sucks to be you)

- 70% chance for a Pz IVH (not too shabby)

- 20% chance for a Pz VD (lotto winner!)

You can do the same thing for any unit type:

- infantry/AT guns

- artillery FO

- planes

- prime movers

- recce vehicles

- infantry company

- heavy weapon support section...

[Vanir Ausf B]

The rarity system has always been overly complicated, marginally effective and generally a pain in the butt. I hope they give it a complete rethinking.

The basic problem is that it uses a single numeric value to represent two entirely different and unrelated characteristics: rarity and battlefield utility.

A much simpler and more effective system would make the unit either available for purchase or not available for purchase. The unit cost should not be affected by rarity at all.

[Brent Pollock]

...which is the ASL chapter H DYO method. You roll 2d6 to determine the availability (e.g. if you roll a 7 or higher, you can only get the plentiful stuff like a Pz IVH, but if you roll a 2, then you can get pretty much anything that ever rolled out of a factory, like a JagdTiger).

[Battlefront.com]

Thing is, if we did it realistically your chances of getting a King Tiger in the Normandy timeframe would be about... oh, perhaps 1 in 10,000. In the Bulge, which had the highest concentration of them, probably... I dunno, 1 in 5,000. Do people really want that? I wouldn't think so On top of that, we should simulate the appearance of armor at all using that system. So you'd probably have to play several hundred games before seeing more than a handful of tanks.

Be careful for what you ask for

Steve

[Pzman]

Yeah, I would like to be able to play with tanks, but hey thats what the scenario editor is for right?

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Thing is, if we did it realistically your chances of getting a King Tiger in the Normandy timeframe would be about... oh, perhaps 1 in 10,000.

I thought it was something like 12 in 2,500, or about 1:200

[Joachim]

I don't want it realistic - I want it somewhat balanced. And rarity is only balancing when the new stuff makes its debut. Not once it vanishes from the battlefield.

After all we have random rarity as an option right now. Not that realistic.

As rarity is not just for tanks:

I want 37mm popguns at a discount rate... wait... they are they dirt cheap any time.

Oh yes... MG34s should never be more expensive than MG42s.

The French tanks from '40 should actually give additional points if you get them in '44 and your opponent has armor. Or your should get more of them than he gets AP rounds.

Gruß

Joachim

[Vanir Ausf B]

I wouldn't make it strictly realistic either. The "ASL Method" mentioned above is more what I had in mind. Rank units 1-10 from most common to most rare, or even 1-5, or whatever works out best. If Jadgtigers are available in 1 of every 5 games they won't appear in 1 out of 5 games. People won't buy them every time they can. I played CMBO for 18 months without ever buying one.

You'ld need some sanity check in the code to throw out the results and reroll if someone was very unlucky and ended up with no tanks or something really unfair, assuming you rolled seperately for each unit. If you use a single roll for the whole game the same roll could apply to both players.

[Battlefront.com]

I thought it was something like 12 in 2,500, or about 1:200

Strictly speaking, that's not correct Those 12 tanks were only in one Company on the whole front. And for how many days within the entire campaign? Out of those days, how many times did they engage in combat? IIRC most of them were knocked out by air or were abandoned for mechanical reasons. But perhaps 1:10000 is a bit of an overstatement. Well, except if the Allied player is US, in which case the chances should be 1:0

Seriously though, I don't agree with Joachim's system. If we are to trash the CMBB/AK system, we would want to go with the other well known system. And that is the "you get it or you don't" system. But a truly random, roll the dice that is what you get, kinda thing doesn't interest us. Which is why we came up with the Rarity system used in CMBB/AK

From the lengthy debates we had about this system, it was made quite clear to us that the people bitching about it wanted to have the big stuff, and not just one or two of them either. When we suggested they just play with Rarity off, then they got all huffy. Seemed to us that people wanted to have the ability to buy the expensive stuff, but not feel "gamey" about doing it (i.e. Rarity off). So instead they wanted CM to sanction picking the big stuff and they could play guilt free. Or somefink like that!

To recap the problem... people want the ability to buy a platoon of King Tigers instead of maybe just one or none, if the game size is too small. But how can we possibly balance the other side's options? By allowing them 20 Shermans? Don't believe me... challenge a decent player to a PBEM game. You play the Allies and get a platoon of Shermans. The other guy plays and gets a platoon of King Tigers. For terrain, go random, then tell me how well it turned out.

The problem Rarity seeked to solve was the inbalance of power between various vehicles and weapons. The only way to do that is to have some sort of rating for the capabilities. Then use that rating as a basis for determining how many you can have vs. the other player. In all the long, long, long and dragged out debates about this nobody offered a viable alternative.

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

The basic problem is that it uses a single numeric value to represent two entirely different and unrelated characteristics: rarity and battlefield utility.

A much simpler and more effective system would make the unit either available for purchase or not available for purchase. The unit cost should not be affected by rarity at all.

Steve,

I happen to think Vanir's is a practical and viable system. Cost is what it is, based on the technical and physical attributes of the unit, and never changes. The rarity is treated as a completely seperate issue, which the effect of making the unit available or not in the purchase screen, based on something like the odds of coming across it, modified, perhaps, by force type.

So, for example in 1944, PzIV and Panther are common as heck for Pz Div force type, but not available for any other. OTOH, Tigers (I or II) are rare as rocking horse poos, but potentially available for any force type (being Korps/Army tps). But the odds are hidden from the player, and the units only available if the odds roll their way. A somewhat similar system is in place now, in that units appear and disappear in the purchase lists depending on the year and month selected.

Meh. I guess that'd get complaints too, because with rarity-on people wouldn't be able to buy whatever, whenever.

Regards

JonS

P.S. will I be able to PBEM a regiment of split Tigers with full rarity?

[ September 07, 2005, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The problem Rarity seeked to solve was the inbalance of power between various vehicles and weapons.

Hmm. It seems like rarity is trying to solve the wrong problem then. To me anyway. The purchase price should seek to solve the imbalance of power between various vehicles and weapons. Rarity 'should' be used to solve the problem of always coming across the same uber-vehicles and combinations.

Regards

JonS

[Battlefront.com]

Jon,

Meh. I guess that'd get complaints too, because with rarity-on people wouldn't be able to buy whatever, whenever.

That is one of the big pluses of the CMx1 system. If you really, really want to put all your eggs in one basket, despite us clearly trying to steer you away from it... well, knock yourself out! At least you have some sort of penalty and some sort of guide about what was rare and what wasn't. And trust me, most people didn't, or still don't, have a clue what is or isn't rare. I remember some classic, and honest, comments like "I didn't know King Tigers were so rare. In Panzer General I got to buy them all the time" and whatnot

Hmm. It seems like rarity is trying to solve the wrong problem then. To me anyway. The purchase price should seek to solve the imbalance of power between various vehicles and weapons. Rarity 'should' be used to solve the problem of always coming across the same uber-vehicles and combinations.

I didn't state things clearly. Rarity was designed to solve the problem of common/uncommon things showing up without the inbalance of power between various vehicles and weapons being compromised.

Yes, I agree that Rarity could be separated out away from a value based Price. There are problems with that system, though. One is restricting people's purchase options in a very black and white way. This would mean uncommon stuff would almost never be seen in battles (which people CLEARLY don't want). The other problem is that people still want to have a platoon of King Tigers without allowing the other side to have 20 Shermans in response. Also people will still bitch and complain about how they can't buy a King Tiger in a 1000 point game and still get a decent infantry force

So basically, I think having two separate variables doesn't resolve the inherent problem:

People don't want to have their unit choices restricted in any way even closely resembling reality, nor do they want their force to be capped and/or restricted so that it is balanced out with the other side's purchases. And that is why Rarity is something we don't think will ever be done in a way that makes everbody happy. Even playing without Rarity doesn't make people happy

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

rarity and the whole cost structure could be viewed (at least by me) as JUST ANOTHER artifical construct on top of a game system to try to fix an artificial problem caused by the way some folks prefer to play (but that is their choice )

What is the problem?

Some people think playing the game means "buying" units to do better then your opponent. The whole concept of "buying" units is an artificial way to try to simulate a WWII battle in CMx1 in the first place (just to set things straight). grr

SO what is the whole rarity thing JUST another artificial compromise or set of limitations on top of an artificial cost structure concocted to try to determine victory points. IMHO

I know my comment has no creadence or place in this thread because many dedicated gamers LOVE this game because they can buy units and do battle. That's great if that's what you like BUT please don't complain about rarity as though it is part of the problem because for me the problem starts when you think its fun to "buy" units for a battle.

And yes if you are wondering I only play double blind scenarios against trusted opponents on pre-build scenario and yes I prefer the historically accurate scenarios the most.

(sorry for the "Stick in the mud" post but rarity is not the problem, IMHO, but what do I know, I never buy units for a battle, ever.)

Rock on

-tom w

[ September 07, 2005, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Ardem]

What about things like stugs, although made they were used on the battlefield because they were turret less they were not really used for tank to tank battles, but in CM:BB and CM:AK they are first choice over a PIV due to price and survivalilty.

I playing a game where this this STug took 3 Sherman penetrations and 3 zook hits knocked out my sherman and then supressed my zooks.

For 111 points thats a lot of power compared to balance of what a sherman costs.

BTW flank attacks in a CM battle compared to real life manuveurs are not possible so your always battling a tanks front.

[Battlefront.com]

Never confuse design over the application of design. StuGs were defacto tanks because the Germans simply didn't have enough tanks. They were indeed the most common armored vehicle on the German side for quite a lot of the war. Even earlier on.

Your StuG got lucky. There is nothing more to it than that.

Flank attacks are certainly possible. Just not that easy to do. In real life they weren't easy to do either.

Steve

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

So basically, I think having two separate variables doesn't resolve the inherent problem:

Steve [/QB]

How about another variable entirely. Instead of just "rarity on" and "rarity off", you have three ways of picking:

1. Real battlefield utility

2. Historical availablity, i.e., rarity on

3. Theoretical utility, i.e., rarity off

The first category would obviously be new and extra work for you guys, but even to a dumb peasant lad such as myself it seems like it woul not be so complicated.

This category would overweight the value of frontal armor and main gun capacity in terms of the cannon's ability to penetrate armor. It would underweight vehicle characteristics that aren't as important in an armor-to-armor gunfight; things like speed, side and rear armor thickness, etc.

At a given time interval it would place an extra premium on a vehicle that's frontally invulnerable (or close to it) to the opposition's main AT weapons. Naturally, this is the "ueber" factor. The premium for total invulnerability (KV in its day, TigerII) is bigger than the premium for partial (Panther and T-34, at various points in the war time line). I don't know if it would be mathematically possible to figure the value, but certainly designers can make a judgement.

As it is, for instance, in June '43 point wise a Tiger I is about twice the value of a single T-34/76. If we're talking battlefield utility, probably that Tiger should be equivalent to four or even six T-34s.

This is not exactly a priority like borg spotting, but a points category like this would make at least some quick battles a little more level, and figuring VPs a bit more RL. Also it seems to me if you guys are going module and no bigger than company, a third unit value category would not be a huge task.

This is just an idea. I suspect borg spotting is going to make flank shots a bit more likely, and if that's the case then maybe the present point system could be transferable to the new game. But even if it is, it seems to me one of the reason the infamous "ueber" vehicles are "ueber" is the present point system undervalues them relative to the oppostion.

Standing by to be put in my place...

[ September 07, 2005, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Battlefront.com]

There are probably 2 dozen different ways to skin this cat, but in the end they basically all have the same problems. Those are the ones I stated above. We're also not looking for any more work to take on

One thing though... since we aren't doing the huge spread of stuff like we did for CMx1, this should make things easier.

Steve

[Scipio]

I turn rarity completly off in my battles. As written above, it's an artifical solution to an artifical problem. When this means that I will face masses of Jagdtigers or JS-III, then I have made indeed a wrong decision: I have chosen the wrong opponent.

A realistic rarity system would mean that the rarity for each vehicel at each time and place must be considered, it would also mean that some vehicels are completly unavaiable at a specific time and place.

In CMBB, you can have T-34 in 1941 all over the frontline, while (IIRC) the Germans faced them only on the southern part of the front in the first month of war, and not in very large numbers.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

One thing though... since we aren't doing the huge spread of stuff like we did for CMx1, this should make things easier.

Will the available stuff be based on historical formation compositions and variations therein or are you simply limiting the models available for purchase in general ?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

To recap the problem... people want the ability to buy a platoon of King Tigers instead of maybe just one or none, if the game size is too small. But how can we possibly balance the other side's options? By allowing them 20 Shermans?

I don't recall seeing anyone argue that they should be allowed to buy more rare units than what the game size would otherwise allow. That would be a very strange arguement to make, and it certainly has nothing to do with the system I was talking about.

Speaking of which, The system I suggested would also be more REALISTIC. Yes, I'm playing the realism card KTs, for example, were indeed rare for the war in general. But if they were involved in a particular battle there would typically be at least a platoon present rather than one or two individual units. The CMx1 system encourages the use of rare units in onesies and twosies. So yes, most of the time rare units should not be available at all, but when they are there's no reason they should not be purchaseable in quantity to whatever extent the size of the QB allows (I guess I need to make that clear )

People don't want to have their unit choices restricted in any way even closely resembling reality, nor do they want their force to be capped and/or restricted so that it is balanced out with the other side's purchases.

I don't think this is true at all for people who want a rarity system. The first part could be true of those who don't want to use rarity in the first place, but they don't have to so who cares?

[ September 08, 2005, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Some people think playing the game means "buying" units to do better then your opponent. The whole concept of "buying" units is an artificial way to try to simulate a WWII battle in CMx1 in the first place (just to set things straight). grr

"Doing better" than your opponent is the ultimate goal of the game. Which makes some sense given that the game simulates a type of contest (warfare).

Some people think the fun in CM is in the strategizing and tactics. Some people consider the purchasing of units to be part of their strategy and therefore part of the fun.

SO what is the whole rarity thing JUST another artificial compromise or set of limitations on top of an artificial cost structure concocted to try to determine victory points. IMHO

Everything about CM is artificial. There is no real battle being fought when you play.

I know my comment has no creadence or place in this thread because many dedicated gamers LOVE this game because they can buy units and do battle.

We do agree on something

That's great if that's what you like BUT please don't complain about rarity as though it is part of the problem because for me the problem starts when you think its fun to "buy" units for a battle.

No one is complaining that rarity is "part of the problem" (part of what problem?), but rather that the current implementation could perhaps be improved upon.

[ September 08, 2005, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Scipio]

How about that kind of rarity:

Since the CM2x battles will cover a much smaller timeframe - shall we say up to an operation like Market Garden, Normandy or maybe Barbarossa, Heeresgrupps Süd...? This means, OoBs are smaller and can be more detailed.

You set the time and/or place of battle.

The program will now set wish Divisions were available at that time and part of the front.

Depending on this, you will now have a pool of units from wish you can make your purchase.

I think a variable rarity based on purchase points wouldn't be necessary anymore now.

Of course this could mean that many unit types will not be available.

[SlowMotion]

That Scipio's idea has the problem that what if the game doesn't include the OOB that was used in some area at some date. What if you want to use units that were available exactly in some certain battle, but not say two weeks later. Should there be a patch to add that rare OOB?

What about a much simpler solution? The game would allow people to make lists of which units are available for purchase. Those lists could be saved and loaded. This way players could have all OOBs they wish to use (realistic or fictional) and Battlefront could use their time for doing other things. If you don't want to see some unit, just exclude it from the list.

[Scipio]

Well, then rarity could be skiped completly. Players just agree what they can use and what should be excluded.

However, following my idea, it don't has to be so strict. For example, Battalion XIII, equipted with antimatter-disrupter squads, were at the frontline in month x and y, but surely not in month z in that area. However, if 'they' include some kind of campaign modus, they would also need to keep track of casualties, especially regarding the rare equipment like KTs, don't they?