Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (Full Version)

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



Message

KG Erwin -> Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/23/2004 5:29:10 AM)

I'm bringing this argument to the gamers. In long campaign play, artillery and naval bombardment assets are way way too cheap. This affects human vs human and human vs AI battles. In reality, a battalion shouldn't expect more than a battalion's worth of off-board support, depending on the mission. Now, I regularly see 2000 points plus being offered as support points in an assault mission. This allows me, say as the USMC, to buy 10 or more 155mm arty batteries. This is historically impossible, as a whole division only had three batteries of 155s in its artillery regiment, as well as nine batteries of 105s.

The naval assets are even worse, as you can buy up to 10 battleships for off-shore bombardment. In reality, at any one time no more than 2 or three BBs were available for this purpose. This is plainly unacceptable. The only answer is vastly increasing the price of off-board elements to make them match historical levels.

As a simple expedient, I would suggest doubling the price of every off-board arty and naval asset. This would encourage the use of the lower-caliber arty (the 75s) and force more historical usage of the heavy arty. What do you guys think?



rjinwootton -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/23/2004 10:44:40 AM)

perhaps the cost should factor in wether you are assaulting defending ect and historical availability eg soviet assault in '45.....guns should be plentifull and cheap[:D]



Hexed Gamer -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/23/2004 3:22:37 PM)

I have to concur, it's a design judgement error of the game.

But I hardly expect anyone to go into the guts of the game and fix it.

Still I certainly agree, the game allows way to much "freedom" with assets.
I routinely when playing a German force pick a whole slew of 88s. It makes it so the infantry sit in the rear with the gear during defend missions. I set up a line of 88s and my armour in atypical unimaginative lines of armour guns combos and merely casually slaughter whatever the hopeless AI sends against me.

Oh yes, that's why I rarely play a long campaign seriously isn't.

Against a human oppoment, well I refer to my oft cited remark, if you play an unplaytested game, expect it to suck. If if you do try your best to be rational.

Some "purchase" based wargames are just not worth it.
It's no better than rock paper sissors. You usually know you have won or lost by the second turn of a human vs human game.



Jamminji -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/23/2004 8:50:31 PM)

I am not sure I understand this... Are you saying KG, that the game gives you XX points to use, and "you" choose to use them in an ahistoric way ie buying too much arty, and you want the "game" to stop you? Why not just buy the units you want that will give you the game you want to play. You are playing the AI so what does it matter anyway, you get to play anyway you want to play.

As for pbem, there are rules that are negotiated to allow the participants to play the type of game they wish fantasy to historic. Not as easy now, with the new purchase routines, so I hear.

jam



rbrunsman -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/23/2004 8:53:18 PM)

No, no, no.

The cost of a unit bears on its Performance.
The rarity of a unit bears on its Availability.

Do not mess with the cost of a unit because you don't like the fact that you can buy a bunch of them. I suggest you use a little self control. Those of you that know what the historical availability of any given unit is should USE THAT knowledge. Don't screw with a factor that wasn't designed to control availabilty because you lack self control.

If you start messing with the cost of the units, you completely ruin the desired goal of having equal point battles being equally balanced battles. 1000 pts v 1000 pts should be an even match. Throwing rarity into the cost structure shouldn't be done.

If anything should be fixed it should be the rarity feature, not the cost feature. Focus all you want on the broken factor, don't mess with a factor that has nothing to do with a consequence you are unhappy with.

rb



rbrunsman -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/23/2004 8:55:46 PM)

Jamminji is a brilliant man.[&o]



Goblin -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/23/2004 9:01:11 PM)

I agree. The unit cost should be left alone. Players should just buy what they feel is right, not force everyone else to play how they want. Besides, with how fast they run out of ammo, you need to buy a few just to simulate one ship or battery's ammo supply.

If you think 10 Cruisers are too much, don't buy them. Don't take the option away from someone who might. This happened with the Recoiless Rifles already. You get 88's cheaper, which is just plain weird.


Goblin



KG Erwin -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/23/2004 11:38:55 PM)

Ok, this is why I posed the question to the community. The consensus seems to be to leave the off-board asset prices as they are. Thanks for your input.



OberJager -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/24/2004 12:04:18 AM)

Recoiless Rifles, what do you mean, what happened to them????

Those suckers are great..



KG Erwin -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/24/2004 12:35:44 AM)

Yes, they are great, but very expensive.



OberJager -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/24/2004 12:46:43 AM)

Kinda messing with the flow of the thread but does anyone know the historical use of the German RRs?

Never heard of them before I stumbled on them in WAW...



Goblin -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/25/2004 1:20:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Yes, they are great, but very expensive.


They are now. Never used to be. They were priced reasonably (7.1), and did not cost more than an 88mm ATG.


Goblin



KG Erwin -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/25/2004 3:18:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rbrunsman

No, no, no.

The cost of a unit bears on its Performance.
The rarity of a unit bears on its Availability.

Do not mess with the cost of a unit because you don't like the fact that you can buy a bunch of them. I suggest you use a little self control. Those of you that know what the historical availability of any given unit is should USE THAT knowledge. Don't screw with a factor that wasn't designed to control availabilty because you lack self control.

If you start messing with the cost of the units, you completely ruin the desired goal of having equal point battles being equally balanced battles. 1000 pts v 1000 pts should be an even match. Throwing rarity into the cost structure shouldn't be done.

If anything should be fixed it should be the rarity feature, not the cost feature. Focus all you want on the broken factor, don't mess with a factor that has nothing to do with a consequence you are unhappy with.

rb


This is a point I disagree with. Unless you negotiate your PBEM battle purchase restrictions, which I think is silly, the only thing to prevent you from buying a slew of German 150 SPs is to make them very expensive. I've heard the arguments back and forth, but I think players MUST be forced into restrictions on what they can buy, whether thru pricing or rarity.

I'm not thinking of experienced players here. I'm considering a newbie who wants to play PBEM. They're thinking, if such and such unit is so cheap, why shouldn't I buy a horde of them? Historical acumen cannot be assumed for the force purchaser.

I would personally prefer taking rarity out of the question entirely, and thus prevent the oddities of infantry platoons not having platoon leaders and other such anomalies.

As for the off-board medium and heavy arty--the team IS working on increasing these prices, to force players into historical usage.

I believe this is the correct method to resolve this issue. You guys want this game to be historical, but yet want free choice on the big ticket killers? No, you can't have it both ways.

As always, this topic is open for continued discussion.



Goblin -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/25/2004 3:28:57 AM)

Why do you think negotiating preferences is silly? Two players must agree on what they enjoy playing, do they not? If you think players should be FORCED into buying only certain units, play chess, and let the guys that actually play PBEM games have fun playing any way they want, instead of someone elses version of what is right. Some of that freedom has already been taken away with the price shifts, we do not need to lose more. The same applies to someone playing the AI at their own home. Why not just include a list of what they are allowed to buy, and delete everything else?



Goblin



Goblin -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/25/2004 3:31:33 AM)

If the team is already boosting the prices, it sounds like the open debate thing is pretty pointless, eh? So much for listening to input.


Goblin



KG Erwin -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/25/2004 4:47:24 AM)

Goblin, the Depot team has their own OOB project going, which I think is great, but you will run into the same problems with trying to please everyone. This is why Dave included the ModSwapper program.

You well know that I don't play PBEM, but I tried to put myself into a PBEM player's shoes, and I'd be strongly tempted to go with the biggest and best, regardless of TOEs or play balance. The object is simply to win, not recreate some historical event.

As for vs AI play--this is my preferred mode, and we've forced the AI into fairly historical buying schemes. These are still being tweaked. The increase in arty prices will affect these, too. I don't want battles to be resolved with WWI-style massive arty barrages, as I was starting to see in my campaign testing.

Yes, I'll readily admit I have an agenda with this--most players play the game solo, so I'm on their side. I want a game or campaign against the AI to be challenging, enjoyable and representative of historical experience, and this is my personal mission as part of the design team.

My dual role as Moderator and team member also puts me on the frontlines for criticisms, but I've chosen to stay on and accept it.

Now, with everyone's suggestions in mind, the team will examine these problems and take them under consideration.



Goblin -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/25/2004 6:48:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

You well know that I don't play PBEM, but I tried to put myself into a PBEM player's shoes, and I'd be strongly tempted to go with the biggest and best, regardless of TOEs or play balance.


Hmmm. 90% of my games are against the AI, and I think the idea sucks. Do you go down a thread like this and label everyone? "Oh, he is a PBEM player, his opinion doesn't count"?

You would never have anyone play you. PBEM polices itself. Don't screw over the PBEM players with YOUR idea of fun. As it stands right now, both parties can still have fun, the way they chose to play, not the way someone else chooses for them to play. Use the modswapper to enforce your own self control, not force your control over others.


Goblin



KG Erwin -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/25/2004 7:13:58 AM)

Goblin, the opinions I express on these issues are my personal opinions. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the OOB Team nor Matrix'. They can speak for themselves. My role, as a moderator, is strictly to enforce the rules of forum behavior here. I am not an official spokesman for Matrix, other than to inform you of any changes in forum policy.



rbrunsman -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/25/2004 11:43:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

You well know that I don't play PBEM, but I tried to put myself into a PBEM player's shoes, and I'd be strongly tempted to go with the biggest and best, regardless of TOEs or play balance. The object is simply to win, not recreate some historical event.


KG, with respect, you are not doing a good job of putting yourself in a PBEM player's shoes. If you have any influence over how the OOB team is taking PBEM player's concerns into consideration, I suggest you get a real PBEMer involved.

You show me someone who buys only "the biggest and best" and I'll show you someone that I will spank thoroughly. You win PBEM with balanced forces not biggest and best, unless, of course, you make the point system meaningless. Adding the 'availability' variable into an already complicated points = quality structure, and you are just dictating your idea of how the game should be played to everyone. If points = quality only, then the game can be all things to all people.

And besides, PBEMers aren't in it to win only. The goal is to have fun. Fun is had by being able to use the silly weapons developed by the various countries. As I used as an example before, the very, very rare Italian Cappuccino Bomb wasn't a very useful weapon as it turned out. Spilling hot coffee on their enemies in Anzio didn't really help too much to stem the tide of Allied soldiers. Oh, well, what do you expect from a weapon that has a performance based price of 2. If you use a strictly rarity based point system, then that cappuccino bomb is going to now cost me 200 pts. No one would ever buy it! Or worse yet, a newbie would buy one thinking, "There must be something special about that cappuccino bomb. I think I'll get a couple." He will obviously get his ass kicked in a PBEM battle by someone who knows better. The learning curve would go steeper than it already is and fewer people would be repeat players of SPWAW because the point system doesn't make much sense.

The great fun is in the variety available. No one in their right mind uses the RR any more because it costs so much. It's fun to use. The sound file for the RR is cool, but who will know any more unless someone puts it in a scenario. Oh, I forgot, they are rare, so no scenarios will be made with that weapon involved. What a pity...

rb



FNG -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/26/2004 4:07:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rbrunsman

The cost of a unit bears on its Performance.
The rarity of a unit bears on its Availability.



I've been playing since SP1 and only normally play vs. AI or MCs, and I entirely agree. I ordinarily play fairly 'historical' formations and occasionally throw a few interesting units in. I think it is entirely wrong to price units 'out of the market' based on availability, and wrong to restrict gamers' choices.

At what point did we appoint the 'Historical Accuracy Police' to enforce restrictions on player choice? There is a rarity option; use if it you want to (I do). Don't mess with unit values, please. It seems to me that price for performance and rarity for availibility suits both camps, whereas rarity pricing only suits the AI players. This strikes me as incredibly short-sighted and more than likely to drive players away from the game.



Alby -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/26/2004 5:00:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rbrunsman

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

You well know that I don't play PBEM, but I tried to put myself into a PBEM player's shoes, and I'd be strongly tempted to go with the biggest and best, regardless of TOEs or play balance. The object is simply to win, not recreate some historical event.




The great fun is in the variety available. No one in their right mind uses the RR any more because it costs so much. It's fun to use. The sound file for the RR is cool, but who will know any more unless someone puts it in a scenario. Oh, I forgot, they are rare, so no scenarios will be made with that weapon involved. What a pity...

rb


No one use Recioless rifles anymore cause they are more expensive than an 88 for gods sake
pretty wierd.



Kevin E. Duguay -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/27/2004 3:57:45 AM)

Im not sure I like this disscesion. People are bashing Erwin and its not fair. WE worked hard on the new OOB's, and now he asks a simple question and gets slamed? For what? Simple discourse would surfice. Exchange ideas and thoughts and this thing will improve. Bitching just dont work.



Goblin -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/27/2004 4:05:28 AM)

Nothing works.


Goblin



Kevin E. Duguay -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/27/2004 4:26:26 AM)

Yes it does. I fought forever and maybe soon you will see what I fought for in the OOB's. Other things were included earlier that I fought for.

And thats a GOOD thing!

GOB, Belive it or not, you also added to the game, as did others.
We are not all knowing, that is why we need you and others to give input. Without it we would be lost. Thank you![;)]



Goblin -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/27/2004 4:33:16 AM)

I appreciate the sentiment, Kevin, but anything that takes a player's freedom of choice away, and causes his decisions to be made by others who want him to play their way, is a bad thing.

I agree that nobody should jump KG, but jumping the stuff he is announcing is a different story. If I wanted to play how someone else played with absolutely no choice in the matter, I would just ask for their copy of the OOB's and delete the rest.


Goblin



Kevin E. Duguay -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/27/2004 4:56:22 AM)

That was no ones intention. WE wanted to give players MORE choice, not less. That is why some things are designer only options.



rbrunsman -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/27/2004 7:05:34 PM)

Since I'm not a designer, and most people aren't, you have just REDUCED choice for the vast majority of the people by making cool things "designer only options."

I don't think I'm bashing anyone, I'm just acting like a broken record, repeating my same complaint at any opportunity, because no one ever responds to our valid arguments that cost should equal performance. Just saying, "we tried to make the OOBs better" (by limiting choice and convoluting the purchase structure) is not an answer.

rb



Flyboy -> RE: Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap? (7/27/2004 10:27:03 PM)

Maybe the next version should have a preference option of X% artillery.

e.g., under Preferences you could set the percentage of total points that could be expended on artillery, much in the same way you can now set the number of air sections.

The setting would have to take into account unit mortars, (i.e. mortars that are part of a company, platoon or section's normal kit), and AT, AA and FO wouldn't be counted toward your maximum arty %age. Same as cargo planes and gliders don't count as air sections now . . .

Just a thought.



TheOverlord -> My .02 (7/28/2004 4:00:16 AM)

Not everyone is interested in historical battles, formations or use of the units as they were in real life.

If someone plays vs the AI and spends 2000 of his 5000 points on 155mm batteries, so what? If it works for him, hey he won didnt he? And he probably had a blast (no pun intended) blowing up everything the AI sent against him. Not everyone values following historical rules so therefore these rules should not be forced on everyone, no matter how offended you are by someone not doing things "the way it really was".

If a person is interested in historically accurate battles then they should purchase their units in accordance to the historical norms, TOE, a particular real battle etc. This applies to AI or human play - it is just with humans you get to aggree to it first.

As it is right now, EVERYONE has the option to play the way they like: pbem'ers can agree to limits ahead of time while vs AI'ers can limit thier own purchases to historical norms and it has already been said that the AI routines have been tweaked toward historical levels.

Rarity and the players own common sense can be used to create a historical situation if they want it that way. There is no need to skew the costs.



KG Erwin -> RE: My .02 (7/28/2004 5:46:00 AM)

Not to worry. We elected to leave these alone, so, end of story.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.046875