Bad Math and Inconsistent Pricing (Full Version)

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



Message

Charles22 -> Bad Math and Inconsistent Pricing (11/21/2000 6:48:00 AM)

While I was playing a WWII campaign picking starting 6/41 against Russia I looked at a I normally never pick. that being the sdkfz 221. At first I noticed it was only 30 pt. cost, so it interested me a bit, and I was buying of formation of three. The only problem is, the cost for the group was 102 not 90. Purchasing the formation indeed deducted 102 pts. I went into the encyclopedia, and the cost stated 29. I think I'll start being more careful that the price I think I'm paying per unit, ends up truly being what I think I'm paying for it.



Wild Bill -> (11/21/2000 8:11:00 AM)

Good catch, Charles. You do have an eye for detail. That is probably why you play the game so well. I hope these occasional disparities in numbers will be addressed somehow. Like you, I just click on a formation, see what it's cost is, and make my decision, yea or nay. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



Paul Vebber -> (11/21/2000 8:49:00 AM)

Its actually not bad math - just two different things going on. The base price is 29, adjusted for the base experience that Germans have in 41 that goes to 30, and because it is +10 to the base experience it goes up another 4 points (which is shown in the total formation cost, but not the per unit cost).



Tankhead -> (11/21/2000 9:00:00 AM)

Thanks Paul! I can see the light [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] Tankhead ------------------ Rick Cloutier [email]rcclout@telusplanet.net[/email] Coordinator: Tankhead's SPWAW Resources http://tankhead.home.icq.com



Charles22 -> (11/21/2000 7:12:00 PM)

Yeah wow, thanks. It does seem odd though, because you're expecting the alleged cost to mean something in terms of you picking it. Perhaps a better way to relate what it really is, would be for instead of it stating 'cost' it would state 'unmodified cost', though, really, the average gamer still wouldn't know what that meant. I also noticed this later with a bunch of other units. It kind of boggles my mind. I thought perhaps that when OOBs were being changed, that people forgot it had a seperate menu where they had to change the encyclopedia, to reflect the changes, so that some units would be accurate, while others would not, entirely dependant on how thorough people were with everything including the encyclopedia to match. Given what Paul said I suppose that everything changed in OOBs happens across the board, without the need for the editinr person needing to have to get into seperate menus. While on the subject of OOBs, is there any further idea of when the next official OOBs are coming out (I haven't downloaded Arralen's)?



Wild Bill -> (11/21/2000 7:26:00 PM)

Good explanation Paul. Kind of reminds you of the "sale price" at a store before they add in the hidden costs! Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



Arralen -> (11/21/2000 9:19:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Charles22: Given what Paul said I suppose that everything changed in OOBs happens across the board, without the need for the editinr person needing to have to get into seperate menusWhile on the subject of OOBs, is there any further idea of when the next official OOBs are coming out (I haven't downloaded Arralen's)?
unit costs ..there's only entry for this .. would be a greater desaster if not .. official OOBs . .this will take a while.. we're trying hard to "get it right" this time, and this requires LOTS of work .. and unfortunately we are not so much people, and everyone has to work on a single OOB at a time .. can't really tell you . I try to finish the first version with modified formations soon, and expect to have to make at least 3 (major) modifications, each of them taking at least 2 weeks [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img] Arralen



Charles22 -> (11/21/2000 9:55:00 PM)

Arralen: Thanks for the update. Surely, with the longer it takes, the better it will be, though there's probably always something that slips through.



john g -> (11/22/2000 12:03:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Its actually not bad math - just two different things going on. The base price is 29, adjusted for the base experience that Germans have in 41 that goes to 30, and because it is +10 to the base experience it goes up another 4 points (which is shown in the total formation cost, but not the per unit cost).
I've noticed the same behavior in the campaign hardware upgrade screen. Your price there is modified as well. Another place this takes effect is the value of the unit when destroyed. At the end of a campaign I had PzVIb's that were worth 301-348 depending on their experience. With units that expensive you don't want one destroyed by any means. thanks, John.



Charles22 -> (11/22/2000 12:32:00 AM)

john g: Let me see if I have this straight, you claim that as a unit gets more experience, it actually subtracts more points on battle 20 than on battle 1 if lost? I've seen the "value" thing on some units be below their cost, and I assumed value was what was accredited to the other side upon it's destruction, but I don't recall seeing any at a value higher than the original cost. If so, that does put a different wrinkle into the game for campaigners. So, here's another question, let's say I have 10 tank units originally costing 100 pts. a piece and their 'value' has increased to 300. Does that make the original 1000 pt. force, 3000? When the other side looks at your force value, to figure out it's force size, would it be operating off the 1000 pts. value or the 3000? If it always operates off the 3000, then what is the point in gaining experience, since it only works to your detriment in a sense? Your 100 pt. tank has just been guaranteed that should he climb to 300, he will have to endure a 3-to-1 deficit. I hope I'm misunderstanding you, or that you're incorrect in any case.



BA Evans -> (11/22/2000 1:24:00 AM)

It sounds like you have it right, Charles. As your units get more experience, they DO become more valuable. This makes sense because experienced units are much more effective on the battlefield and they are also much harder to replace if lost. Have you ever had to replace one of your high experience units with a green crew? Ugh, they can't hit the broad side of a barn compared to their experienced squad mates. The computer does take this 'increased value' into consideration when it is purchasing its units. It wouldn't be fair for AI to stay at 1,000 points when you are using a bunch of super killer units, worth 3,000. The battle would be much too easy for you then. No challenge. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] BA Evans



john g -> (11/23/2000 3:32:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Charles22: john g: Let me see if I have this straight, you claim that as a unit gets more experience, it actually subtracts more points on battle 20 than on battle 1 if lost? I've seen the "value" thing on some units be below their cost, and I assumed value was what was accredited to the other side upon it's destruction, but I don't recall seeing any at a value higher than the original cost. If so, that does put a different wrinkle into the game for campaigners. So, here's another question, let's say I have 10 tank units originally costing 100 pts. a piece and their 'value' has increased to 300. Does that make the original 1000 pt. force, 3000? When the other side looks at your force value, to figure out it's force size, would it be operating off the 1000 pts. value or the 3000? If it always operates off the 3000, then what is the point in gaining experience, since it only works to your detriment in a sense? Your 100 pt. tank has just been guaranteed that should he climb to 300, he will have to endure a 3-to-1 deficit. I hope I'm misunderstanding you, or that you're incorrect in any case.
It isn't as bad as a 3-1 bump, the PZVIb that I had at 348 value was something like a 108 experiance, 117 armor leader with a 105 rally and 99 morale. It had progressed to the point where I could count on it to kill 3-4 tanks per turn, due to both it's increased chance to hit and the increase in firing rate. With several of these in a firing line I could kill tank platoon after tank platoon, until their guns broke or they ran out of ammo. thanks, John.



AmmoSgt -> (11/23/2000 5:00:00 PM)

I have found that if you click on a unit then right click on it, it brings up the unit data screen, shows you most all the values the unit uses inculding it's current true cost and what it is worth at this point in time in this scenario/campaine battle. As you upgrade units to more expensive units that have a higher base cost they lose experience thus slighly reducing combat effectiveness and again affecting their point value which starts increasing as they regain experience ... this is what i have found ... it is all on the unit data screen . Yes it does appear that the AI calculates the point values as you turn opel blitz's into wulfraums and Deuce and a halfs into M3 Half tracks and M20 scout cars into pershings and creats your opfor according . Very clever..the AI....can't get away with anything. Would you really want to ??? Half the fun is picking units in my opinion . Picking the cheapest scraggliest units so you exactly max the unit limit with exactly the points availble for the core units, and then upgrading to a dream army OOB that the americans in reality couldn't even afford was fun in the SP1 SP2 SP3 days .. it was gamesmanship .....ahhh those were the days. But now with more unit slots in the Core units than you could possibly fill and needing to actually do combine arms tactics in SPWaW ya have to be realistic in unit selection.. well kinda .. Real realism would mean knowing your units capabilities and ensuring they only undertook mission they were trained and equiped for ..well unless ordered otherwise instead of putting together units with extra AT because you know the Germans have tanks everytime for sure. This whole concept of having to use actual tactics instead of excellent gamesmanship is absolutely ruining the whole concept of wargaming and having decent AI is starting a disturbing trend that is going to end up ruining all of our scores. [This message has been edited by AmmoSgt (edited November 23, 2000).]



Charles22 -> (11/23/2000 11:25:00 PM)

I don't think anyone actually complains that they won't be able to equal their old Panzer Strike scores, because there's not much comparison anymore, as the pricing and even the conditions of battle are largely different. Same goes for better AI, when one or several innovations come along between games, the ability to compare one's old scores to the new becomes more and more remote (if one did such things). The only comparison I see that might be of some use, is if the forces used now, are about the same size as back when, and then you can attempt to make kill comparisons. BTW, for those who like larger battles (I'm generally in those ranks), we can know that it's surely not we that might have a hangup about what the kill-rate was in the past games, or the past scores, for we are fighting on a larger scale, whereas it seems that fighting on a smaller scale might be more indicative of comparing to the past (the Panzer Strikes of the world used smaller forces). I don't have a problem with people comparing to the old stuff, because I for one still have every single battle I fought during one campaign of Panzer Strike among my papers, but I haven't bothered to even glimpse at them in some sort of comparison attempt, since the forces are so much larger, and the rules fairly different. Oh, I know AmmoSgt was tongue-in-cheek, but I thought I'd add this anyway and since the idea he put forth doesn't fall on my head it's not hitting me (as I've explained). [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9370117