(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

victorhauser -> (7/15/2000 8:48:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Charles22: Victor: You've said where you've stood before, and I don't think anyone doubts your voracity. It's true, Charles. I am indeed a voracious SPWAW gamer. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

Charles22 -> (7/15/2000 9:03:00 AM)
Victor: And you probably know this, I was referring to your voracity in opposing the material/rarity/tonnage or any other angle that would constitute a non-performance-based heresy between different classes of vehicles. Tell me Victor, do you understand the futility of comparing vehicles of completely different classes via combat and that it's not possible to be fair across the board? Have you resigned to the sense in keeping comparisons only between classes (but then maybe some are in the wrong class anyway)? In other words, to make this an easier thing to say, do you see how comparing the T34/85 to the Tiger was flawed and how you could only be fair as to compare the T34/85 to perhaps the PZIVH? Or maybe the Tiger to the KV85? If not, I would suggest you run a test, to do the opposite of what your test did, and pit 20 KV85s against 20 PZIVHs and prepare to see the KV85 cost soar as well. What do you think of this AFV pricing method, in this thread, or did I miss that?

Tombstone -> (7/15/2000 2:42:00 PM)
Oh no... not again guys! About unit pricing as a whole- I think it's a really good idea to break it down into two even parts (offense and defense) and two weaker parts (agility and misc) The Zecret formula looks like it could easily be diverted into a few seperate values. Then we could tinker with the ratios that we allow those values to interact with each other to come up with prices.... Tomo

victorhauser -> (7/15/2000 2:57:00 PM)
Well, Charles, I understand your futility with trying to compare tanks from "different" classes. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] However, the reason I brought up the Tiger I vs. T-34/85 issue way back when is because the T-34/85 is priced at 120 points and the Tiger I at 117 points, which didn't seem right to me. And the whole 20 vs. 20 thing was based on 2400 points of Tiger Is vs. 2400 points of T-34/85s. It was always a points issue with me and nothing more. The case of the Pz IVh vs. the KV-85 is very different. The Pz IVh is priced at 73 points and the KV-85 at 129 points. Now don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure that the KV-85 should be priced lower than the Tiger I. But looking strictly at the prices here from v2.3, 1550 points buys 21 Pz IVhs and the same 1550 points buys 12 KV-85s. So the battle in this case would be 21 vs. 12 with 1550 points each. Much less of an issue here, which is why I (or anybody else) didn't bring it up. As for the price list currently under discussion in this thread, I believe that it is in preliminary rough draft condition as posted. It needs substantial refinement and playtesting. That is simply my belief. And it is definitely not an indictment. Indeed, I salute Voriax and his comrades for trying to solve an extremely complicated problem. There will be no easy answers and that makes their efforts all the more admirable, whatever the outcome of their attempt. I would be very interested in seeing how a "Charles22" AFV price list compares with the ones posted in this forum. (I would like to share my AFV ratings, but I am under a non-disclosure agreement with the company I work for. We expect to have our game ready in 12 months or so. Then I will happily show you the fruits of my labors in this area.)

Charles22 -> (7/15/2000 6:22:00 PM)
Come on Victor, though I understand your angle, that doesn't mean I agree with it, if that's what you're thinking. I didn't realize that the KV85 and PZIVH price was so distant, while the Tiger and T34/85 were so close. On a tonnage, or class basis alone, I can see how the T34/85 is overpriced, so our opposing systems come to somewhat of the same conclusion, as indeed they may often do. What I vehemently oppose, no matter how often it's been done, no matter how allegedly scientific or popular it's been, is the method you first presented (pricing based on 20 vs. 20) and I think I've proven sufficiently that it's flawed (again, put 60 T34/85s against 20 Tigers, and see what I mean. We should have all units wiped out - dead even, assuming to 20 vs. 20 battle were something to base merit on). I've presented a number of alternatives, tonnage/production/class/material, etc., but I can see my goose is cooked, and any comments I make are merely meant to be a brake from AOE mentality taking hold entirely (which I believe they use some variation of the 20 vs. 20 test, don't they?). I don't look forward to this becoming "Paper, Stone, Scissors" on a WWII scale. As for constructing an elaborate system which is already destined to be shot down, it would be foolish. In any case, I don't have tonnage figures for instance, but I would think that with someone who has the time, it wouldn't be the most difficult task. Also, given that I'm not employed in the gaming industry, I don't have the time to go digging around, nor do I have the influence that you apparently do. Use it wisely Victor.

Jon Grasham -> (7/15/2000 11:36:00 PM)
Just my thought, if you did 20vs 20 fights (Im not saying that anyone thinks this is the way it should be done, merely stating a point) then you would have to do many of them, as all the variables could be "rolled" entireley your way 1 time, and the opposite the next. I found my own balancing for my German campaign. I jus turned on True Troop costs, and so the AI gets points according to my units experience, and then, buys theirs according to their own. As a result, The Red army is one massive opponent! Even in Assault missions, I tend to be outnumbered, and in Assaults? I wish I had a few MRLS to blanket the area beforehand! :-)

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.171875