RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (Full Version)

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



Message

JJKettunen -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 11:19:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

mhh... but is the goal of this !

or do you want only have sturmtigers
and kingtigers around ? so these must
be a) rare ( if rarety works ) or
b) much more expensive ( if doesnīt ).

even more expensive perhaps than there
combat value because of the rarety...how
much KTīs were produced ? not that much
i think...


You obviosly don't get the main point here. When units are priced according to their overall capabilities, both sides know exactly how much overall combat power their units present, and balanced PBEMs are much easier to set. Otherwise one has to scrutinize every freaking unit to get most "bang for the buck"...



Rune Iversen -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 11:27:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Just a guess here, but a number of you have complained about the OOB team doing the OOB"s by 'feel'. Perhaps this OOB team is a backlash from the previous 'hard facts' teams of the past. 'Hard facts' alone, nor 'feel' alone, suffice.


How is common sense for starters?



harlekwin -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 11:49:28 PM)

I have been pondering the 150mm Pen of the 76.2 HEAT round for Ivan and it got me to thinking.....

The game does not properly model the wildly variable nature of HEAT penetration. A deviation of as little as 10% in the jet degrades penetration 30% or so IIRC.(I will dig up a table if able) Anyway point of impact and the surface have a lot to do with how the jet forms.

I understand that the engine will not handle and the model is NOT equipped to factor in deviations in point of impact rendering an effect on the formation of the jet, but my concern with the radical pen increase is that if anything barring a randomizer the drive should be to underrate not overrate HEAT rounds. Don't misunderstand I am not advocating a reduction in existing HEAT round stats but the radical increase leads to a performance that is in no way indicative of reality at all and has a chilling effect on tactics.

All of the powers understood the ease with which the era's heat rounds could have their damage reduced and took field expedient measures to do so. The game does not and cannot render the wildly variable nature of these expedients so what we are left with is a vastly overrated heat round engaging NO counter measures. I am not at this late date in the life of SPWAW advocating a radical shift just explaining the reasoning behind my resistance to the 150mm penetration.

HEAT rounds pen is given for a flush hit center mass on a body of steel. That happens like oh "never". I wish it did but wish in one hand and .....

you get the idea....

[;)]

Believe me if it were that easy SABOT would never have been invented.



harlekwin -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/5/2004 11:49:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Just a guess here, but a number of you have complained about the OOB team doing the OOB"s by 'feel'. Perhaps this OOB team is a backlash from the previous 'hard facts' teams of the past. 'Hard facts' alone, nor 'feel' alone, suffice.


How is common sense for starters?




were it common it would NOT be as valued as it is....



rbrunsman -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 12:03:25 AM)

Good discussion. I wish an "OOB master" would pipe up and share their (misguided) thoughts on the change they've decided to make.

The 57mm Recoiless Rifle is the best example of the sillyness this new pricing structure is.

For example: You have an uninitiated player who is brave enough to challenge a good player. The good player knows the ins and outs of this "availability" pricing scheme. The newbie doesn't. The newbie will not only lose the battle to the experienced player, he will literally get his ass handed to him on a plate. He has no idea why he got crushed when he bought those 80 point 57mm RRs compared to the German 88s that also cost 80pts (I'm guessing at the actual cost in v8.01). A discouraged newbie is a newbie that won't return.

And, Frank W., I don't put restrictions on what my opponent can buy and I hardly ever see KTs and SturmTigers. They just aren't that effective. It's not worth putting "all your eggs in one basket" by buying these units. Personally, I'd rather have the two platoons of infantry I can get rather than one King Tiger. To make them seriously more expensive to reflect their rarity, will mean that you will never see them except for in pre-made scenarios (as noted before by another poster), where, I might add, point costs are irrelevant. So, changing point costs only serves to eliminate the use of "rare" units from normal PBEM games. No one ever suggested PBEM is a re-creation of WWII. It is the scenario designers that simulate the real battles of WWII where point costs just don't matter.

Hello OOB people...



Frank W. -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 12:23:23 AM)

quote:


You obviosly don't get the main point here. When units are priced according to their overall capabilities, both sides know exactly how much overall combat power their units present, and balanced PBEMs are much easier to set. Otherwise one has to scrutinize every freaking unit to get most "bang for the buck"...


i donīt need to know the price of a unit, as
i know in the meantime the capabilities of most
units. perhaps for beginners this is point you
bring up here... like in these real time games:
you have a tank with 1 laser gun cost = 10 another
with 2 laser guns cost 20 or so...[8|]

but perhaps i understood you wrong....

what means "scrutinize" btw ? another
word for this ?



Frank W. -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 12:33:00 AM)

>>>>>>Good discussion. I wish an "OOB master" would pipe up and share their (misguided) thoughts on the change they've decided to make.

i think the masters wonīt speak with us moaners and bitchers anymore [:(]

>>>>>For example: You have an uninitiated player who is brave enough to challenge a good player. The good player knows the ins and outs of this "availability" pricing scheme. The newbie doesn't. The newbie will not only lose the battle to the experienced player, he will literally get his ass handed to him on a plate. He has no idea why he got crushed when he bought those 80 point 57mm RRs compared to the German 88s that also cost 80pts (I'm guessing at the actual cost in v8.01). A discouraged newbie is a newbie that won't return.

i DON`T agree again [8D]

this should not be that easy game for everyone..
even a newbei must learn and look some days into
the unit database before starting play a rbrunsman
or viking numero 2 [sm=terms.gif]

>>>>>And, Frank W., I don't put restrictions on what my opponent can buy and I hardly ever see KTs and SturmTigers. They just aren't that effective. It's not worth putting "all your eggs in one basket" by buying these units. Personally, I'd rather have the two platoons of infantry I can get rather than one King Tiger. To make them seriously more expensive to reflect their rarity, will mean that you will never see them except for in pre-made scenarios (as noted before by another poster), where, I might add, point costs are irrelevant. So, changing point costs only serves to eliminate the use of "rare" units from normal PBEM games. No one ever suggested PBEM is a re-creation of WWII. It is the scenario designers that simulate the real battles of WWII where point costs just don't matter.

THIS may be a valid point finally made by you [sm=00000947.gif]



JJKettunen -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 12:40:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

i donīt need to know the price of a unit, as
i know in the meantime the capabilities of most
units. perhaps for beginners this is point you
bring up here... like in these real time games:
you have a tank with 1 laser gun cost = 10 another
with 2 laser guns cost 20 or so...[8|]

but perhaps i understood you wrong....


Perhaps you just don't want to understand the point presented here. At least it seems so.

Since you know every freaking unit in detail, and what to buy and what not for a balanced PBEM, there should be a rarity factor included in unit prices. Is it just me, or does this argument of yours sound little...stupid?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.
what means "scrutinize" btw ? another
word for this ?


Definition:
1. [v] of accounts and tax returns; with the intent to verify
2. [v] to look at critically or searchingly, or in minute detail; "he scrutinized his likeness in the mirror."

Synonyms: audit, inspect, scrutinise, scrutinise, size up, take stock

See Also: analyse, analyze, canvass, examine, examine, see, study

[:D]



JJKettunen -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 12:46:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rbrunsman

Good discussion. I wish an "OOB master" would pipe up and share their (misguided) thoughts on the change they've decided to make.

The 57mm Recoiless Rifle is the best example of the sillyness this new pricing structure is.

For example: You have an uninitiated player who is brave enough to challenge a good player. The good player knows the ins and outs of this "availability" pricing scheme. The newbie doesn't. The newbie will not only lose the battle to the experienced player, he will literally get his ass handed to him on a plate. He has no idea why he got crushed when he bought those 80 point 57mm RRs compared to the German 88s that also cost 80pts (I'm guessing at the actual cost in v8.01). A discouraged newbie is a newbie that won't return.

And, Frank W., I don't put restrictions on what my opponent can buy and I hardly ever see KTs and SturmTigers. They just aren't that effective. It's not worth putting "all your eggs in one basket" by buying these units. Personally, I'd rather have the two platoons of infantry I can get rather than one King Tiger. To make them seriously more expensive to reflect their rarity, will mean that you will never see them except for in pre-made scenarios (as noted before by another poster), where, I might add, point costs are irrelevant. So, changing point costs only serves to eliminate the use of "rare" units from normal PBEM games. No one ever suggested PBEM is a re-creation of WWII. It is the scenario designers that simulate the real battles of WWII where point costs just don't matter.

Hello OOB people...


Unit prices matter in scenarios too, when losses are counted. That's why I said that scenario designers can set unit prices separately if need be.



Frank W. -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 12:48:41 AM)

>>>Since you know every freaking unit in detail, and what to buy and what not for a balanced PBEM, there should be a rarity factor included in unit prices. Is it just me, or does this argument of yours sound little...stupid?

perhaps iīm stupid ? who knows [sm=00000734.gif]

but i think say a russian player should be able
to at least use the russian tactics.... so most
russian stuff should be cheaper compared to the
germanīs...therefore they have better optics and
fire control, and mostly the better crews..

>>>>See Also: analyse, analyze, canvass, examine, examine, see, study

whow, the englsih language is more difficult
than i thought...need to learn more [sm=00000939.gif]



Charles2222 -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 12:56:49 AM)

rbrunsman: BTW, sorry for the lack of quoting you on my previous post. I meant to do that but hit the wrong button. I was responding to this one:

quote:

Frank W, WHY do you disagree?

PBEMs rely upon being able to pit equally matched forces against each other. The old "buy point" system ensured that. The new system takes out all sense of balance for PBEM. It would take much trial and error (and argument) for two players to arrive at what is to be considered an equal battle. Two players who don't know each other and just want a quick matchup cannot do so any more if this "availability" point system is adopted. The "historical accuracy" crowd (I guess) would argue that this new point system forces players to buy appropriately. But why should "appropriate" purchases be the Holy Grail of PBEM battles. As long as the points are equal then everyone can further refine their desires from there. This new system absolutely cuts out the players like myself, who aren't a gung-ho about historical accuracy. I just want a fair matchup.

No one else is hurt (that I can think of) to leave the point system the way it was. The new system harms PBEMers and does nothing special to further the game.

Draconian dictation of "historical" accuracy serves what purpose?



JJKettunen -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 12:58:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

perhaps iīm stupid ? who knows [sm=00000734.gif]


LOL! Can't argue with that.[:D] [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.but i think say a russian player should be able
to at least use the russian tactics.... so most
russian stuff should be cheaper compared to the
germanīs...therefore they have better optics and
fire control, and mostly the better crews..[sm=00000734.gif]


Do note that most Soviet stuff *is* cheaper with capability based unit pricing...



Charles2222 -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 12:59:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Just a guess here, but a number of you have complained about the OOB team doing the OOB"s by 'feel'. Perhaps this OOB team is a backlash from the previous 'hard facts' teams of the past. 'Hard facts' alone, nor 'feel' alone, suffice.


How is common sense for starters?


There you go.



Goblin -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 1:02:11 AM)

Couldn't help but notice that other people are allowed to make snide comments on the new OOB thread. Not me or some other terrorist types though...

Goblin



KG Erwin -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 1:40:46 AM)

Posted by Keke:
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread (in reply to KG Erwin)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

Users viewing this topic: Keke, harlekwin, Rune Iversen, KG Erwin



_____________________________

Furthermore, this is directed at three members--we know who they are, they know who they are, so the rest of you should not let these guys screw up this community.



KG Erwin -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 1:43:05 AM)

Posted by Rune Iversen:
quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

Users viewing this topic: Keke, harlekwin, Rune Iversen, KG Erwin




Furthermore, this is directed at three members--we know who they are, they know who they are, so the rest of you should not let these guys screw up this community.



Rune Iversen -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 1:45:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goblin

Couldn't help but notice that other people are allowed to make snide comments on the new OOB thread. Not me or some other terrorist types though...

Goblin


Obviously somebody is more equal than others around here. But who am I to complain[;)]



Goblin -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 2:07:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Posted by Keke:
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread (in reply to KG Erwin)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

Users viewing this topic: Keke, harlekwin, Rune Iversen, KG Erwin



_____________________________

Furthermore, this is directed at three members--we know who they are, they know who they are, so the rest of you should not let these guys screw up this community.



My comment was related to Frank W's post calling people Tiger Kiddies. But you proved my point perfectly, thanks.

If you are going to enforce a rule as a moderator, how about enforcing it equally? Or maybe actually typing out a list of who a certain rule will affect? Thanks.


Goblin



KG Erwin -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 8:31:06 AM)

Posted by Frank W:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay

GOOD POINT!!!!!


the "tiger kiddies" - (c) by ammo sgt. -
will not agree



Tombstone -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 10:06:49 AM)

Frank, I'm sorry man but your argument is awfully flawed. Do you play a lot of PBEM? It's like you just dont get it. It is a simple fact of it being a game that people play against each other. Unit selection is an axis of control for the players in a head to head situation demands that there are rules to define fairness. Assigning point values that represent in-game effectiveness is the easiest AND best way to do it. It not only means that you can choose the exact ratio of effectiveness between the two players (which is often going to be 1:1), but it also means that players can understand what the makers of the game have made to be the range between least and most effective unit. Although the points thing does have an impact on scenarios it is small in comparison to multiplayer. I cant imagine that you've played a lot of SPWAW head to head. If you haven't, what do you care what the pricing scheme is like? For campaign purchases? Even then it breaks down. Campaign battles adjust to the value of the units you have. You aren't making the right game development decision if you think that a rare unit should bring the ai down on you harder. That's ridiculous. It needs to be based on in-game effectiveness and nothing else, or else you have no reason for the pricing scheme in the first place. Is this discussed so intensively elsewhere? It just seems proposterous to me. Whenever people think about games they think about how a RESULT is undesirable, they never think about WHY a system exists and what role it plays in the overall game design. Whoah, sorry... this is starting to sound like beginning of a rant about MY job.

Tomo

Tomo



Frank W. -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 3:08:04 PM)

tombstone: i play mostly PBM, but started the H2H stalingrad camp and
also play the 7.1 russian steel camp ( battle no. 31 b.t.w ) - my best unit
is a KV with now 200 kills [:)]

did i do something wrong with the comment to "tiger kiddies" ?
this is just something i took over from the former poster
"ammo sgt." hope you donīt mind and donīt take it that serious
you little kiddies [:'(]



Tombstone -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 8:18:21 PM)

Ok, so you play a lot of pbem games... do you play mosty(only?) scenarios against others? I'm not challenging your experience with SP#-SPWAW, I'm not attacking you... however vehemently I disagree with you.

Tomo



Frank W. -> RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread (3/6/2004 9:06:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

Ok, so you play a lot of pbem games... do you play mosty(only?) scenarios against others? I'm not challenging your experience with SP#-SPWAW, I'm not attacking you... however vehemently I disagree with you.

Tomo


no mostly random generated maps.

i only played one scen the last time, named "steel shield"

we can play a game if you want...( only H2H 7.1 )



mine_field -> Sturmtigers, cost in PBEM (3/13/2004 1:26:57 PM)

BTW, I'm pretty new. Hello everyone.

In regards to the pricing based on combat ability, or pricing based on representing what an army could afford to bring to the battle because of national characteristics or rarity, I can see both sides. As a newb, I just want to say to those of you that disregard rarity and opt for a "unrealistic historical representation," couldn't you just play the the same nation against itself? No problems with unit equality there.
As far as starting to price units based on rarity, you begin to run into some problems with the middle road. For units made in excess of 100, how do you factor in rarity? Pricing could just as well be based on manhours required for the vehicle, the tonnage of the vehicle, the % of resources that vehicle cost per that nations Gross National Product during that year, etc.

I do agree that some units should be discouraged from PBEM play by increasing their cost. The prime example of this is the SturmTiger. Ten (read ten as in the number above 9) were ever sent into combat. They were not used as an assualt gun but rather as a SP Arty piece against heavy emplacements. To find them blowing up infantry on the battlefield is not only disregarding their rarity, it is disregarding their role. But that isn't even the biggest problem! (enter bitch and moan) If the SturmTiger took 10 minutes to reload (and it did), and a SPWAW round simulates several minutes (and it does), then the Rate of Fire should be 2 minutes / 10 minutes or 0.2. Not the 2.0 that it is currently rated at. Give me an Allied on-board arty piece with its rate of fire times ten, and then I will leave the sturmtiger's oob alone.

In regards to the KingTiger's production, figures follow below. (assuming you mean PzKpfw VI Ausf B, since King Tiger was an allied nickname).

German Production by Henschel
______1942__ 1943__ 1944____ 1945
Total_________3______377____107



Frank W. -> RE: Sturmtigers, cost in PBEM (3/13/2004 8:25:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mine_field

BTW, I'm pretty new. Hello everyone.

In regards to the pricing based on combat ability, or pricing based on representing what an army could afford to bring to the battle because of national characteristics or rarity, I can see both sides. As a newb, I just want to say to those of you that disregard rarity and opt for a "unrealistic historical representation," couldn't you just play the the same nation against itself? No problems with unit equality there.
As far as starting to price units based on rarity, you begin to run into some problems with the middle road. For units made in excess of 100, how do you factor in rarity? Pricing could just as well be based on manhours required for the vehicle, the tonnage of the vehicle, the % of resources that vehicle cost per that nations Gross National Product during that year, etc.

I do agree that some units should be discouraged from PBEM play by increasing their cost. The prime example of this is the SturmTiger. Ten (read ten as in the number above 9) were ever sent into combat. They were not used as an assualt gun but rather as a SP Arty piece against heavy emplacements. To find them blowing up infantry on the battlefield is not only disregarding their rarity, it is disregarding their role. But that isn't even the biggest problem! (enter bitch and moan) If the SturmTiger took 10 minutes to reload (and it did), and a SPWAW round simulates several minutes (and it does), then the Rate of Fire should be 2 minutes / 10 minutes or 0.2. Not the 2.0 that it is currently rated at. Give me an Allied on-board arty piece with its rate of fire times ten, and then I will leave the sturmtiger's oob alone.

In regards to the KingTiger's production, figures follow below. (assuming you mean PzKpfw VI Ausf B, since King Tiger was an allied nickname).

German Production by Henschel
______1942__ 1943__ 1944____ 1945
Total_________3______377____107


good post for a newbie [;)]

i mean those j.tigers + k.tigers are
not value for money. they are too slow !

but i can think of games in good weather with
good vis in which any opp of these monsters
will be quite in trouble...say vis 30 or so.
they can pick you up from the distance, if
you have no air force or fast reaction heavy
mortars to counter those it will be quite
impossible to advance....but perhaps iīm
too dumb. there are for shure players out
there who know the tricks to overcome such
situations ( reminds me i must still improve
my playing quite much [X(])



mine_field -> RE: Sturmtigers, cost in PBEM (3/13/2004 9:11:34 PM)

Ehh, thanks for the compliment.

Production figures were in reply to Frank W.'s
quote:

even more expensive perhaps than there
combat value because of the rarety...how
much KTīs were produced ? not that much
i think...


I understand your tactical analysis of the big beasts. I haven't used them enough to know much about them. I did just get my ass handed to me on a platter in single player campaign though. I had a nice ambush set up where 10-12 tanks and TD's were taking anything that came into the killzone, approximately 7-8 hexes away. Well one of these j.tigers comes in (unfortunately the ambush was all head on) and just whipes out the whole bottom half of the ambushing force. Wolverine, Jackson, Wolverine, Sherman, Sherman... all gone while this beast is slowly moving forward. The Nashornes and Panther V's were no help either (are the V's actually Tigers? I need to go re-read my own information).

No doubt you are right though about trying to get at one of those from a distance. When you reach ranges where their range finders and fire control measures give them impunity, it becomes quite a trick to approach them.

My scenario was due mainly to my own dumb self, partly because I was really tired. I'm going to 'cheat' and go play it again. Couldn't even repair my forces after that battle. Marginal Victory though. VH's and all that destroyed pretty German armor helped.



VonUngernSternberg -> RE: Sturmtigers, cost in PBEM (3/21/2004 4:33:00 AM)

I wonder if it's just me.

As a PBEM and online player, I much prefer cost to be based on efficiency, rather than rarity. Why? Because it does allow for much more balanced battles if that is what you want, quick and easily.

And if you want to go full-out historical?

Well, in that case you can have a gentleman's agreement with your opponent to try and keep things somewhat realistic. You can even play meeting engagements in which one side has more points than the other, if you like. You can discuss with your opponent, in advance, the make-up of your troops - not the specifics, of course, but what initial recon might have told them. For example, I've done games in which we took pretty standard formations, with a few tweaks here and there, and told the other what generic kind of formation it was. For example, I was a ragtag mob of Volksgrenadier, a couple batallions with a little artillery and armor support, and my opponent played a big ol' American armored group hammering me through the snowy woods. And it was fun. If you want history, there's always talking things over.

The baseline should be balanced, and then people who want to set limitations on this balance can do it like adults, rather than enforcing whacky limitations on people.



KG Erwin -> RE: Sturmtigers, cost in PBEM (3/21/2004 6:21:42 AM)

For h2h battle, why not let a third party set up the forces? I keep arguing for this, but players are too timid to accept it. I think it's funny that you guys are so unsure of yourselves. Viking would LOVE to do this--let him select the forces for you.



VikingNo2 -> RE: Sturmtigers, cost in PBEM (3/21/2004 8:07:01 AM)

Yes I would but I do strongly believe that the game should not link price to rarity[;)]



Wild Bill -> RE: Sturmtigers, cost in PBEM (3/31/2004 5:43:26 PM)

I like the idea, Gunny! Having an arbiter or referee for this kind of game would be great!

WB



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2