Normandy: Immobilisations

[Paul AU]

Flamingknives

How often do you fall victim to random immobilisation on firm ground?

I’ve already said it’s rare. I’ve already said it’s a game-buster that’s easily fixed - to no one's detriment.

stikkypixie

What's I also don't get is that someone who claims to enjoy the tactical challenge of fighting Stuarts against King Tigers, does not enjoy the challenge of fighting infantry against tanks.

In fact, that’s one of my favourite type of scenarios. The desperate defence. But a sudden ridiculous random withdrawal of any semblance of fairness just makes any victory or defeat - hollow. A waste of a game. I hope it's obvious that if such 'misfortune' befalls my opponent, I feel the same. I don't want to beat a guy who's lost his armour because it tried to move.

If you play QB and you buy two tanks and you know there is a chance bogging then you better have back-up plan or make one up on the fly. That's a tactical challenge.

This is BFC’s position. I’ve stated mine.

I guess birdstrike re-stated it too well. (Thank you)

But then there’s dieseltaylor observation: Playing with a couple of tanks just makes bogging too important

It does.

[Michael Emrys]

But then there’s dieseltaylor observation: Playing with a couple of tanks just makes bogging too important

But it's not just bogging, you see. If you play with only one or two tanks, then your armor is vulnerable to being incapacitated through a variety of means. If the enemy has any sort of viable AT capability, then one or two tanks are likely just a waste of points as they are likely to get picked off before they can accomplish anything decisive. Better to buy more leg infantry or another arty module.

Michael

[flamingknives]

But a sudden ridiculous random withdrawal of any semblance of fairness just makes any victory or defeat - hollow

But you don't feel that a fluke shot does the same?

[dieseltaylor]

ASLvet

Dammit! I had about thirty minutes worth of typing done

If you use more than the single finger it will not be so bad .... : )

Michael Emrys

But it's not just bogging, you see. If you play with only one or two tanks, then your armor is vulnerable to being incapacitated through a variety of means. If the enemy has any sort of viable AT capability, then one or two tanks are likely just a waste of points as they are likely to get picked off before they can accomplish anything decisive. Better to buy more leg infantry or another arty module.

Are you kidding!!!?? An artillery module in preference to what tank? a PzII. Without even knowing the terrain the advice sucks! : )

[Kwazydog]

In fact, that’s one of my favourite type of scenarios. The desperate defence. But a sudden ridiculous random withdrawal of any semblance of fairness just makes any victory or defeat - hollow. A waste of a game.

Isnt it going to be just as ridiculous though if the other player can drive any vehicle, from a kubelwagon to a King Tiger, across any terrain in any conditions without fear of consequence?

Isnt this in turn going to change the part of the fundamental tactical challenge of the game, essentially allowing the game to play out in a completely different manner than it otherwise might?

I know that due to this very reason I used to babysit my important assets throughout the entire game, only taking them off road if absolutely necessary and even then only at slow speeds. If I know they can plough through muddy fields or forested hills with their foot to the floor and without consequence, I will certainly be using them in a different manner.

Dan

[dieseltaylor]

More of Normandy infrastructure and geology can be read in extracts here:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9FhyfzbsQIQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA55&dq=%22E.P.F.+Rose%22&ots=Sl9fYRgM3K&sig=2fnjZsitUvwSauTZRsuhXPWQ210#PPA66,M1

[Michael Emrys]

Are you kidding!!!?? An artillery module in preference to what tank? a PzII. Without even knowing the terrain the advice sucks! : )

Relax there, old thing. I can only speak from my own experience with the game, although what I observed was consistent with what I would have expected from my readings.

If the enemy has an AT gun or two, and any kind of concealment, the ATGs are most likely going to get in the first shot. Your tank is very likely going to die or at least be rendered inoperative before it can even return fire, unless it is one of those heavily armored übertanks. So you shucked out a bunch of points and what you get for your trouble is a smoking hulk.

In playing the game, I quickly learned that if I couldn't afford to purchase at least a platoon and deploy them so that they were mutually supporting, there really wasn't much point. With that number, even if you lose a tank, you at least have a fighting chance to nail the ATG and then go on to do something else with the surviving armor.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

PaulAU,

I’ve already said it’s rare. I’ve already said it’s a game-buster that’s easily fixed - to no one's detriment.

Er... yeah, to the detriment of people who want to play a game that isn't artificially sanitized for people who wish to have some realism but not specifically others. Again, what you see as something extra ordinarily "unfair", others see as no different than anything else. Therefore, your opinion that it's a "game-buster" is just that. An opinion and one that is not universal by any stretch of the imagination.

As it has been stated over and over and over again... what you are asking for is to turn of a piece of realism because, simply put, you can't take the challenge it offers. Why not have a feature which requires a hit to register within 100% probability of a kill to cause a kill, instead of allowing for whatever realistic variance there is in real life? Why not turn off friendly fire so you know you won't hurt your own guys no matter what you do? Why not turn off random artillery delivery times so you can know, without any doubt, when your artillery will hit? Why not turn off hundreds of other things so when all is said and done we have a soulless, empty game devoid of any qualities to separate itself form RTS games?

In fact, that’s one of my favourite type of scenarios. The desperate defence. But a sudden ridiculous random withdrawal of any semblance of fairness just makes any victory or defeat - hollow. A waste of a game. I hope it's obvious that if such 'misfortune' befalls my opponent, I feel the same. I don't want to beat a guy who's lost his armour because it tried to move.

But a fluke shot is OK? Would you throw in a game you were winning because the other guy accidentally left his best unit up on a hill for you to shoot at? How about a game where your opponent made a mistake by putting his one and only AT gun in the wrong spot and therefore didn't have LOS to your line of advance?

Paul... you keep trying to make a logical case when it is clear you are unable to. There's absolutely nothing backing up your position here other than "I don't like it". Fine, but we don't change realistic and core game features simply because someone doesn't like it. There has to be a real reason to do so.

And stop calling it "random" because it isn't. There are factors which determine if you bog or not, just like there are factors which determine if you can hit something or not. The two are no different from each other.

Playing with a couple of tanks just makes bogging too important

Fluke shots, friendly fire, piss-poor tactical decisions, misreading terrain, etc. all count as well. Why do you have no problem with any of these?

Michael Emrys,

But it's not just bogging, you see. If you play with only one or two tanks, then your armor is vulnerable to being incapacitated through a variety of means. If the enemy has any sort of viable AT capability, then one or two tanks are likely just a waste of points as they are likely to get picked off before they can accomplish anything decisive.

Yup. This is where PaulAU's arguments keep faltering and falling apart. There is no difference between bogging and anything else. But he insists that there is, even though clearly there isn't.

Now, if bogging really were completely random, then he'd have a case to make. By completely random I mean that every time you move your vehicle there was an equal chance of bogging regardless of terrain, regardless of experience, regardless of weather, etc. instead of the realism based probability model we created. That would be completely crazy for us to have in the game and we'd be absolutely fools for insisting it be kept in. But it doesn't work that way so the line of thinking is completely irrelevant.

If someone wants to argue our bogging system is too heavily weighted one way or another, great... get some data out in the open and let's see where it goes. But a position which basically boils down to "no bogging is acceptable to me because I don't like it" will always be dismissed. Otherwise CM will no longer be CM. Therefore, disagree with our modeling... fine... but disagreeing with the philosophy of having a game which models reality... falls on deaf ears.

flamingknives,

But you don't feel that a fluke shot does the same?

From PaulAU's previous posts it would appear that somehow he can put bogging into a completely different category than any of the other dozens of things which can suddenly determine if a game is won/lost.

Kwazydog,

Isnt it going to be just as ridiculous though if the other player can drive any vehicle, from a kubelwagon to a King Tiger, across any terrain in any conditions without fear of consequence?

That's the crux of the issue right here. PaulAU thinks it is more fun to have there be zero accountability. Use anything anywhere anytime, no worries. Because anything other than zero bogging/immobilization would frustrate him. Doesn't matter if we had 20000 lines of code and 10 years of research data accurately detailing the chances of a specific vehicle bogging in specific circumstances. He simply doesn't want to have this element in the game because, well, for some reason he can't deal with it like he can the hundreds of other things which he's not in favor of having removed.

I know that due to this very reason I used to babysit my important assets throughout the entire game, only taking them off road if absolutely necessary and even then only at slow speeds. If I know they can plough through muddy fields or forested hills with their foot to the floor and without consequence, I will certainly be using them in a different manner.

As you would if you knew a Sherman could NEVER kill your Tiger from the front or NEVER lose your own infantry to a friendly artillery bombardment. Yup... just drive your Tigers straight at the enemy and then once your infantry is amongst his infantry hit them with 155s while your infantry picks off the survivors.

I know PaulAU THINKS he isn't arguing for things like this, but that is exactly what his argument amounts to; selectively disabling tactical reality to suit individual tastes. Which is exactly why we will never do what he asks of us, just like we'd never turn off friendly fire effects or any number of other things just like bogging.

Michael Emrys,

If the enemy has an AT gun or two, and any kind of concealment, the ATGs are most likely going to get in the first shot. Your tank is very likely going to die or at least be rendered inoperative before it can even return fire, unless it is one of those heavily armored übertanks. So you shucked out a bunch of points and what you get for your trouble is a smoking hulk.

In playing the game, I quickly learned that if I couldn't afford to purchase at least a platoon and deploy them so that they were mutually supporting, there really wasn't much point. With that number, even if you lose a tank, you at least have a fighting chance to nail the ATG and then go on to do something else with the surviving armor.

I concur. This is why I've always been perplexed by people who have insisted that CM is just a tank game with infantry tacked onto it. I personally always prefer to play infantry heavy games. Given a straight up choice between adding another tank to my mix or another platoon of infantry, I'd most likely go with the infantry regardless of terrain. In fact, if you want a safe choice infantry is really the only way to go because it generally works equally well on offense and defense no matter the weather or terrain. Or at least it has a much less chance of completely sucking for the conditions.

Ever squandered points on a Pak43 only to find out you're playing in a hilly wooded map? Maybe blowing points on a Sherman Jumbo and finding out you're up against Marder IIs. Or how about a Jagdtiger on the attack and it turns out the enemy has nothing but infantry? Sure, you nail the crap out of some of the guy's infantry, but what happens when the ammo count goes down to zero and you're no where near to winning the battle? Ask for a "do over" because things are unfair?

Steve

[MikeyD]

I'm reminded of an old hand on the CMBB board once stating "Newbies want to play nothing but Tiger tank scenarios, experienced players prefer to play Hungarian infantry".

After playing his 20th scenario with ubertanks on open dry ground the player might want something a little different. Free French partisans for example, or pillboxes with overlapping fields of fire, or a blown bridge or a cliff face, or a muddly rain-soaked potato field. There's a hundred kinds of scenarios to build, but only about a dozen are ideal for unrestricted ubertank warfare. And you simply can't force-fit your favorite equipment into each scenario.

[flamingknives]

I don't think that PaulAU is calling for all bogging to be turned off, but only that on what might be considered "safe" terrain.

[dieseltaylor]

This seems a strange hybrid conversation given it is Normandy as the main thread : )

I cannot claim to have played more games than most but I have around 150 recorded at WeBoB where I joined in August 2004 and believe me I played loads more pre 2004 than after sometimes as many as eleven at once. And if you play PBEMHElper in trusted you also play games in half or a third of the time playing normally.

So basically I have played quite a few games. I have to go off to breakfast but consider the most popular scenario Tiger Valley - tank heavy or infantry heavy?

[Kwazydog]

I don't think that PaulAU is calling for all bogging to be turned off, but only that on what might be considered "safe" terrain.

I hadnt actually gotten that impression from this thread but even if so we already have that option if we set the map to dry terrain, reducing immobilisations to all but the rarest of rare occasions. Even if one considers that not the case, where do we draw the line....I once had a Panther taken out by a direct hit from a pre-planned mortar barrage but have never considered it necessary to have the ability to turn such an event off. Then again I cant remember bogging ever being a problem either.

Dan

[dieseltaylor]

Michael Emrys,

Quote:

If the enemy has an AT gun or two, and any kind of concealment, the ATGs are most likely going to get in the first shot. Your tank is very likely going to die or at least be rendered inoperative before it can even return fire, unless it is one of those heavily armored übertanks. So you shucked out a bunch of points and what you get for your trouble is a smoking hulk.

In playing the game, I quickly learned that if I couldn't afford to purchase at least a platoon and deploy them so that they were mutually supporting, there really wasn't much point. With that number, even if you lose a tank, you at least have a fighting chance to nail the ATG and then go on to do something else with the surviving armor.

I concur. This is why I've always been perplexed by people who have insisted that CM is just a tank game with infantry tacked onto it. I personally always prefer to play infantry heavy games. Given a straight up choice between adding another tank to my mix or another platoon of infantry, I'd most likely go with the infantry regardless of terrain. In fact, if you want a safe choice infantry is really the only way to go because it generally works equally well on offense and defense no matter the weather or terrain. Or at least it has a much less chance of completely sucking for the conditions.

Ever squandered points on a Pak43 only to find out you're playing in a hilly wooded map? Maybe blowing points on a Sherman Jumbo and finding out you're up against Marder IIs. Or how about a Jagdtiger on the attack and it turns out the enemy has nothing but infantry? Sure, you nail the crap out of some of the guy's infantry, but what happens when the ammo count goes down to zero and you're no where near to winning the battle? Ask for a "do over" because things are unfair?

Steve

Hmmm! Perhaps before I get too involved I should point out that I very rarely play on mini-maps or even small maps so I could agree that in those circumstances what you two are saying makes a degree of sense.

There can be no doubt that on small maps a module of artillery or an extra platoon may be more effective than a tank. That is solely because of map size not an absolute rule.

I find that small maps with the hard edges so important are unsatisfactory in terms of my vision of real terrain, and the effects of flanking fire etc. I have almost always played on large or huge maps. This is in my estimation is better as particularly in CMBB it meant the Russians could buy tanks an actually use movement to weaken the German position rather than be faced with staring down the barrel of multiple Stugs with 80mm of armour or well positioned ATG.

And given superior German tanks it is also good when playing the Western Allies.

Also this talk of infantry being superior for attack and defense seems to be a generalisation where really your AT ability - as for early war Russians is fairly pathetic - should be qualified. I also suspect that again the presumption is a small map where infantry can be expected to get to all the interesting areas in reasonable time.

ME writes of a couple of ATG nullifying tanks, it seems to me the tactical effects of having live tanks with the ability to switch a point of attack or simply to be "the fleet in being" is underated. However on a small maps perhaps these roles are not possible.

In scenarios I do get to play some of the "unsatisfactory" aspects of the game. Flags positioned on map sides and baseline, small number of units, night fighting, maps that defy logic, reinforcements arriving 20 units at a time on entrance point, units arriving under fire.

Of course these are not game faults but design mistakes - but I do get exposed to them. : )

BTW

Ever squandered points on a Pak43 only to find out you're playing in a hilly wooded map?

I had to laugh.

a] you mean you do not know the parameters before you purchase!!!!

b] you don't buy some wheels just in case there is a great position beyond the start line?!!!!

c] I thought keyholing would be a stack easier!

Maybe blowing points on a Sherman Jumbo and finding out you're up against Marder IIs. Or how about a Jagdtiger on the attack and it turns out the enemy has nothing but infantry

Looks like the cherrypickers ball. I like to play with casualties on so tha people get out of naughty cherrypicking behaviour. Incidentaly when talking of points and terrain as a force multiplier my analogy is a large Tiger at the end of a very long bridge over water and you have ten times the points in infantry - and he has the flags.

Yipee for the infantry!

[flamingknives]

Kwazydog,

I'm not supporting bogging toggle, I just think that it is important that Paul's argument is not turned into a strawman.

[Michael Emrys]

Also this talk of infantry being superior for attack and defense seems to be a generalisation where really your AT ability - as for early war Russians is fairly pathetic - should be qualified.

Certainly. Nearly everybody's AT ability at the start of the war was nothing like it became later on, even though it was also the case that the majority of tanks were lightly armored compared to later. I suppose the first really big advance in ATGs was the introduction of the PaK 38 in early '41. And prior to late '42 man portable AT weapons were not impressive.

I also suspect that again the presumption is a small map where infantry can be expected to get to all the interesting areas in reasonable time.

ME writes of a couple of ATG nullifying tanks, it seems to me the tactical effects of having live tanks with the ability to switch a point of attack or simply to be "the fleet in being" is underated. However on a small maps perhaps these roles are not possible.

I don't recall playing very often on small maps. The ones I designed myself were generally in the neighborhood of 1 km square. That's not huge, but neither is it as small as the maps advertised as small. The criterion for me was that they would be of a size to yield a frontage that the defending forces might have a realistic chance of holding. Exceptions were if I were deliberately trying to model a dramatic breakthrough. Of course, if you were playing a live opponent, he might not appreciate the historical value of that.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

flamingknives,

I'm not supporting bogging toggle, I just think that it is important that Paul's argument is not turned into a strawman.

Too late... he already did that by brining up bogging on roads in dry conditions many times and then admitting it might have happened to him only once in 6 years

The problem with PaulAU's line of argument is that it makes no logical sense. It's gone round and round, but it basically boils down to him saying that he understands bogging is a real battlefield danger, that it should be simulated, but it should never actually happen because no matter what if it does the game is ruined and can't be played any more from that point on. How can you say something should be in the game in one breath and then say it shouldn't do anything in the next? It's illogical.

PaulAU has argued against "random bogging", but what he means to say is "unpredictable bogging". There's a difference. Random bogging, which is akin to the game rolling a 6 sided die every x meters, is completely unrealistic and that's why we didn't do it that way. Unpredictable bogging is the chance of getting stuck somewhere unexpectedly based on reasonable real world variables. As I've said earlier, the latter typifies 100% of all bogging incidents in the real world since nobody would purposefully do something to become bogged. This means any bogging system which allows the player to knowingly avoid bogging is just as unrealistic as a bogging system which is completely random. PaulAU has asked for the latter system because it's clear that even ONE bogging, no matter what, is too much for him to accept. Which is why he's asked to have a feature to toggle bogging off.

If I've misunderstood any of his points after 27 pages of discussion I'd be surprised. However, if PaulAU wishes to address how it is possible to have a realistic depiction of bogging without also including unpredictable results... I'm all ears.

As for bogging being no different than fluke shots or what not... clearly this has been established by now. An opinion that bogging is somehow different can be had, of course, but it's an opinion that has no factual basis and therefore should be dismissed.

Steve

[costard]

I was wondering if there might not be a financial edge to PaulAU's argument - include a toggle for bogging / other aspects of realism, and thereby increase your potential market. In other words, if you're going to prostitute your talents, give the customer more of what he wants (instant gratification, less of a need for intellectual work) and rake in more money thereby: sell out your principles and include a mechanism for dumbing down the product. Crikey, everyone else does it...

[flamingknives]

Steve,

AIUI, Paul was asking for a toggle that only affected "safe" terrain. I personally don't think that it is a good idea for the reasons I have put forwards earlier in the thread which are very similar to yours. However, I don't think that he was asking for something that completely removed all bogging. There would still be some situations where you might end up bogging based on terrain, but by sticking to "safe" terrain you could avoid it.

I suppose it's an argument along the lines that you can position your forces in such a way that they are effectively safe from the enemy but you cannot position them such that they are entirely safe from bogging. It's a flawed argument, IMHO, as you can't win a battle without engaging the enemy and thus exposing your forces to all manner of random chance. In addition there is no such thing as truly "Safe" terrain except well maintained metalled road. In good weather.

[Apocal]

In other words, if you're going to prostitute your talents, give the customer more of what he wants (instant gratification, less of a need for intellectual work) and rake in more money thereby: sell out your principles and include a mechanism for dumbing down the product. Crikey, everyone else does it...

The market for dumbed-down wargames was eviscerated when RTSes really came into force. Now the market is saturated with good to excellent RTSes. CMSF (or any serious wargame) going in that direction is like jumping off a rope bridge onto razor wire.

[Kwazydog]

AIUI, Paul was asking for a toggle that only affected "safe" terrain. I personally don't think that it is a good idea for the reasons I have put forwards earlier in the thread which are very similar to yours. However, I don't think that he was asking for something that completely removed all bogging.

Possible fk! I origionally understood that to be the argument, but I had the impression that that had changed somewhere along the line for the sake of simplicity as Paul was quoting the fact that it would only take a couple of lines of code to add the feature he required. To me that sounded like an all or nothing toggle, but maybe not.

Dan

[MikeyD]

If you're going to toggle bogging why not toggle everything else? Everybody gets unlimited LOS; 'Red' wounded units turn back to 'Yellow' after 2 turns; smoke clouds do not float away in a breeze; artillery keeps spotting ability outside of LOS; troops alway stay in HQ command; night vision the same a day vision; airburst either kills nobody or everybody (depending on which you'd prefer); vehicles can drive through trees instead of around them. Water is always fordable. If you're going to 'simplify' the game might as well dumb it all the way down to moron level.

[Battlefront.com]

costard,

I was wondering if there might not be a financial edge to PaulAU's argument - include a toggle for bogging / other aspects of realism, and thereby increase your potential market.

If I thought it would increase our sales, maybe it would be considered. But again... PaulAU has been playing CM for how long despite this horrible game killing flaw? And does anybody seriously think he won't buy another CM game simply because of the admittedly infrequent bogging event? Me thinks not

In other words, if you're going to prostitute your talents, give the customer more of what he wants (instant gratification, less of a need for intellectual work) and rake in more money thereby: sell out your principles and include a mechanism for dumbing down the product. Crikey, everyone else does it...

I know, I know... we're a dumb as rocks bunch, that's for sure!

The serious reason to not include toggles have already been stated. Basically stated, we're not including power ups and teleport gates either. A line has to be drawn and we feel that no-bogging is on the wrong side of things.

flamingknives,

AIUI, Paul was asking for a toggle that only affected "safe" terrain. I personally don't think that it is a good idea for the reasons I have put forwards earlier in the thread which are very similar to yours. However, I don't think that he was asking for something that completely removed all bogging. There would still be some situations where you might end up bogging based on terrain, but by sticking to "safe" terrain you could avoid it.

Right, but what is "safe" terrain? In the real world there is absolutely nothing of the sort. Do we cherry pick a few types almost at random and make them forever safe? What about weather effects? Open ground now 100% safe even when Muddy? And by "open ground", what exactly does that mean since CMx2 doesn't have a single terrain type like that? What happens when maps don't have significant amounts of "safe terrain" and PaulAU's Panther gets stuck. Will he now be happy with the result, or will he request all bogging to be turned off? Based on his arguments, my guess is that in reality any bogging would be a problem for him. He wants predictability and if there is any reason he can't have it, then there's going to be a complaint lodged.

So while PaulAU might be thinking his request is contained, it really isn't. His arguments for the feature to be turned off are purely emotional and come back to the salient point that he never, ever wants to have a vehicle "bogged" because that ruins the game for him. Ergo, bogging will have to be completely shut off in order to ensure he doesn't get to that level of frustration again. Like someone asking for "lucky shots" to be toggled off, but only in certain circumstances. First time he gets taken out by a "lucky shot" he's going to try to widen the scope of what should be included in the toggle.

I suppose it's an argument along the lines that you can position your forces in such a way that they are effectively safe from the enemy but you cannot position them such that they are entirely safe from bogging. It's a flawed argument, IMHO, as you can't win a battle without engaging the enemy and thus exposing your forces to all manner of random chance. In addition there is no such thing as truly "Safe" terrain except well maintained metalled road. In good weather.

Yup, so if I told PaulAU that we agreed with his request and allowed bogging to be turned off for well maintained roads in dry conditions, my guess is he wouldn't like that. So down the slippery slope towards something CM is purposefully not designed to be. Especially because...

Apocal,

The market for dumbed-down wargames was eviscerated when RTSes really came into force. Now the market is saturated with good to excellent RTSes. CMSF (or any serious wargame) going in that direction is like jumping off a rope bridge onto razor wire.

Exactly. That middle ground is pretty damned small. CM has good graphics, 1:1 representation, RealTime play, and a few other features which might make RTS/FPS types more interested in CM. True enough. But it remains distinctly different from them because we're staying out of the RTS rat race. CMx1 did pretty well with this strategy (though with more primitive bling) and CMx2 seems to be doing well in that regard too. If we instead try to make CM more like an RTS/FPS game we'd lose our unique angle and be trounced by games which have tens of millions more to spend on bling than we do.

Steve

[c3k]

Obviously any potential bogging toggle would need a name: boggle. I hereby copyright that term.

Henceforward, and forthwith, all players would ask their opponents, "Boggle on or off?"

Please return to your regularly scheduled debate.

Ken

[dieseltaylor]

And the correct reply will be

"Bog Off"

[Battlefront.com]

After a trip to Scottland I will never think of Bog Off as anything other than what a shop window claimed it to mean:

Buy one get One for free

Steve