QB pricing oddities?

[FragerZ]

My solution is to always play scenarios. They are usually tested to be balanced, and will provide unique and historically consistent battlefields

[Vanir Ausf B]

Bren tripods! How could I forget Bren tripods?

My solution is to always play scenarios. They are usually tested to be balanced, and will provide unique and historically consistent battlefields

Usually tested against the AI. The QB units costs are mostly for multiplayer, because the AI couldn't care less how fair it is.

[xian]

Push us hard enough and we'll remove the points again, as we did with CM:SF. So tread carefully

Fantastic - never known a software company to threaten its customers with reduced functionality... very funny.

[Childress]

Now the interesting question is learning which unit will be propelled to the top of the charts by the ME-playing, green eye-shade types. The 60m Mortar? The Stummel? Only time will tell.

It's sort of like P/E stock ratios.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Fantastic - never known a software company to threaten its customers with reduced functionality... very funny.

And he probably means it. After all the back-and-forth in CMx1 regarding what gun and armor stats the games used, in CMx2 we have... power bars

[JonS]

I really don't understand the angst over talking about this.

Everyone agrees that there is such a thing as a perfect combination of temperature and humidity. No one agrees what that perfect combination is. Therefore: angst over the aircon setting.

I'm not a programer but I suspect adjusting the units cost would be a trivial task.

Changing the values probably is trivial. Figuring out what to change them to is not.

[Broken]

If the "optimal" QB unit purchase quickly converges on Panthers to the exclusion of all other German Armor, regardless of tactical circumstances, then they are obviously under-costed.

But the optimal QB purchase always converges. How quickly and to how few units determines the lifespan of a game like CMBN, at least for head-to-head QB purposes.

CM is similar to the card game Magic in that regard. A new Set of Magic cards comes out and Magic players race to find the optimal card decks. The more optimal decks there are and the longer it takes to find them, the greater the longevity of the Set and the more money Magic presumably makes.

[JonS]

If the "optimal" QB unit purchase quickly converges on Panthers to the exclusion of all other German Armor, regardless of tactical circumstances, then they are obviously under-costed.

Not necessarily. The Panther was a really good tank, so it makes sense that it'd be picked most often, and - without knowing the heuristics used to set unit prices - maybe it does make sense that the Panther be priced the way it is.

There may also be a difference of opinion over what the costs are trying to acheive. One reasonable - but I think flawed - approach would be that any given number of points always buys the same 'value' of 'tanks', regardless of whether its PzIV or PzVI. In that sense it wouldn't matter a jot what I bought, since a point spent of tanks is worth the same regardless of what I spend it on. I guess that's broadly the objective of any purchasing system, but clearly some tanks are just simply 'better' than others. That is, better value for money. Or points.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Changing the values probably is trivial. Figuring out what to change them to is not.

That's our job. As Childress sarcastically but correctly said, the market will decide. It's far too early to be making judgements now, but I suspect the OP is on to something. Although the CMx1 games were not perfect with regard to unit costs between different unit types (turretless TDs vs. tanks, for example), I felt it was nearly spot-on regarding units within the same category. That's why it's surprising to see the Big Cats significantly cheaper compared to Mk IV in CMBN.

The situation will improve somewhat when the later modules are released and we get access to Sherman Fireflys and M36 Jackson. As it stands now I would probably ask for a gentleman's agreement in any PBEM not to use Panthers, not only because they are cheap but because the Allied player currently doesn't have any good answer to them. The Tiger isn't as much of a problem.

[WillLight]

Here's a great idea, if I may say so myself BFC implement an interface to read QB prices and report QB selections. Someone in the community implements a QB force selection "stock exchange". Now, the more people buy of something in QBs the more it gets expensive, and thus the true price, as valued by the players will emerge. You would only (optionally) connect to the exchange for head to head play so it would have no bearing (or additional complexity) for AI or for those who don't care.

I know it's never going to happen, but to try and lure Steve into it anyway, at least it will end the headache of QB prices

[JonS]

You know, if you feel that strongly about it, you could do it now, as a seperate activity. Max out the points available in any QB so you can - in principle - buy anything you want, then refer to a seperate 'stock exchange' to put together a package in a shopping cart that you can actually 'afford' given the current spot price and total agreed price, then go back to CMBN and buy what's in your shopping cart.

Also: I loathe the idea of software phoning home, for whatever reason.

[Broken]

Not necessarily. The Panther was a really good tank, so it makes sense that it'd be picked most often, and - without knowing the heuristics used to set unit prices - maybe it does make sense that the Panther be priced the way it is.

There may also be a difference of opinion over what the costs are trying to acheive. One reasonable - but I think flawed - approach would be that any given number of points always buys the same 'value' of 'tanks', regardless of whether its PzIV or PzVI. In that sense it wouldn't matter a jot what I bought, since a point spent of tanks is worth the same regardless of what I spend it on. I guess that's broadly the objective of any purchasing system, but clearly some tanks are just simply 'better' than others. That is, better value for money. Or points.

Yes, it does matter what the costs are intended to reflect. If the cost represented the economic cost to "build" the unit then a vanilla Sherman would be 1/10 the cost of a Panther, judging by their relative production quantities and not counting crews.

If the costs are supposed to reflect relative effectiveness, then Shermans should be discounted in price relative to Panthers by this measure as well. But by how much? In a strictly head-to-head anti-armor sense, the Sherman should be discounted by a lot. In an anti-infantry sense, the Sherman was as good as a Panther, and shouldn't be discounted at all.

WillLight's idea of a QB market is intriguing. Let the market set the price. Not sure how you could implement it though.

[LemoN]

One thing I don't quite get is how the US rockets can only cost between 50 and 90 points. :confused:

Fun-fact, except once I've only played Allies to this point in MP games.

[JonS]

For giggles I had a look at the pricing that the Flames of War use for their miniatures:

Tiger I E	215

Panther D, A, G	187

Pz IV H		95

StuG III G	95

JPz IV		95

Sherman M4	68

Sherman M4A1	68

Sherman V (M4A4)90

Sherman VC	95-105

Sherman	I (M4)	67

Sherman	II (M4A1)87

Discuss.

[LemoN]

You have to add that Germans are usually Confident/Veterans which makes them far harder to hit.

[Sergei]

For giggles I had a look at the pricing that the Flames of War use for their miniatures:

Tiger I E	215

Panther D, A, G	187

Pz IV H		95

StuG III G	95

JPz IV		95

Sherman M4	68

Sherman M4A1	68

Sherman V (M4A4)90

Sherman VC	95-105

Sherman	I (M4)	67

Sherman	II (M4A1)87

Discuss.

Are those prices in US dollars or Euros?

[JonS]

Spanish groats.

[ChrisND]

Spanish groats.

For a second I misread that and thought you meant "Spanish goats".

[JonS]

No, they fell out of favour with the introduction of the common European currency. There are still segments of the black market where they're used though.

[LemoN]

common European currency.

Those would be the Spanish Goats then, right?

[JonS]

No, Swiss goats. Exchangeable at the official rate of 2:1 for English badgers.

[LemoN]

2:1 for English badgers.

No way!

We Austrians have an exchange rate of 3:1 between Spanish goats and Austrian cows, yet only an exchange rate of 2:3 for English badgers!

[JonS]

Yeah, well, that's what you get for being Austrian. Did you never wonder why your invitations to the European Union Livestock Exchange Market Fixing Comittee meetings were posted in the cellar, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, in a disused lavatory, with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard?’

[LemoN]

I'm still curious as to why the US 114mm rockets only cost ~50-80 points.

[ng cavscout]

Ah... and the arguing over points starts again

... Push us hard enough and we'll remove the points again, as we did with CM:SF. So tread carefully

...

Steve

There would be a great wailing and gnashing of the teeth.

Maybe just start a sub-forum "things you want to natter on about but the Dev's will not be looking at"