unit costs ..

unit costs .. (Full Version)

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

Message

Arralen -> unit costs .. (7/4/2000 11:39:00 PM)
Starting a new thread with appropiat headline so everyone who has something to say 'bout this can find it easily [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] IMO the only way to measure unit cost is by comparing the availability of the unit in question. Production numbers won't do, as countries hadn't the same overall production and where fighting at a different numbers of fronts. Combat effectiveness can't be a measure, as it is almost impossible to measure it - and, ***, who says war is fair? [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] And it will give absurd point values - an example: The allies considered the Panther a MBT - and calculated to need 5 Sherman or 6 T34 (of which one one would come back) to take it out of business. According to this "combat value assessment", the Panther should be 4 times as expensive as a Sherman, and 5 times as a T34 ... and the Tiger will rate even higher [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/eek.gif[/img] This wouldn't make any sense to me, really. If someone wants fair e-mail games, he should use same country for both sides - than he can really be shure that 1000 points equal 1000 points - otherwise this wouldn't ever be possible, so why ruining the game by trying to achieve this? Arralen

Antonius -> (7/5/2000 3:48:00 AM)
No, performance is the best base for unit costs. I think it would be VERY absurd to have the PzI cost more than the PzIV simply because the PzIV was the most common german AFV. As for Panthers vs Sherman, you have a point but forget that against infantry and light armor the Sherman and Panther are roughly equal. So that the panther costs twice as much as the Sherman looks good to me. Which doesn't mean that availability is unimportant, but should be included through a rarity factor like the way airsupport is. But i suppose it requires plenty of coding and a major OB research/update so it won't be implemented. As for balancing games, the best way i know is mirrored games with the same map.

Spanjab -> (7/5/2000 5:02:00 AM)
Yeah, mirrored games on symmetrical maps with both sides choosing the same nation are fair I suppose. Boring though.. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] My gut feeling is that a few minor point changes will suffice in most cases. I guarantee what everyone wants is not absolute historical accuracy but the illusion of accuracy within a fair base.

Panther -> (7/5/2000 8:23:00 PM)
If this case is simply cost what I have done in with other players is to award different points for the alies then the axis. Example 1000 points to the germans and 2500 points to either the russians or the americans. This would be roughly altered depending on the type of battle. german defense allied assault. 1000 germany 5000 alies.

Arralen -> (7/7/2000 3:11:00 PM)
Originally posted by Antonius: No, performance is the best base for unit costs. I think it would be VERY absurd to have the PzI cost more than the PzIV simply because the PzIV was the most common german AFV. But there are times where the PzIV is simply not available - and times where it is idiotic to buy it [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] As for Panthers vs Sherman, you have a point but forget that against infantry and light armor the Sherman and Panther are roughly equal. So that the panther costs twice as much as the Sherman looks good to me. So you prefer your "feel" against hard facts? Ok, so I'll by a core force of Panthers and Tigers for double the point cost of your Shermans, and I'll wipe your ... and loose only about 1/4 of my tanks (all other things being equal). Is this fair ? As for balancing games, the best way i know is mirrored games with the same map. But you don't have these in Steel Panthers - and who will play with same units on both sides? So why trying to make point values "fair", and ruining the game by this (as the AI then will never buy a force that makes any sense historically) ?? If one wants historical correct battles vs. another player, they'll get a consent about the troops involved in the engagement - if they just want to do a game of chess, they should do exactly that [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Arralen [This message has been edited by Arralen (edited 07-07-2000).] [This message has been edited by Arralen (edited 07-07-2000).]

Michael Wermelin -> (7/7/2000 3:38:00 PM)
The problem seems to center around the single unit or tank. As a whole, one need instead to look at the company, bat. or regiment as a whole. Overall, different countries have roughly the same amount of men in a standard company, bat. or regiment. It differs, yes, but largly the same number. The problem as I see it in all Steel games is the relative problem in byuing a historical not too incorrect army. If points could be determined for an over all army, perhaps the discussions around single tanks would be unnessessary. After all, most battles included many different kinds of weaponry. The army's effectiviness as a whole should be more considered, rather than single units and tanks !!!! If you start with this, then you can perhaps work yourself down the ranks to finally put a fair value on the single tank. I feel that there is something missing when I buy units for a generated battle. It would be great if I could view, somehow, the historical OOB of companies, battalions and regiments and buy them as "large" packages. This can be done now, I know, but it could be more developed. Unfortunately the buying of units is centered on buying them individually, which is quite unhistorical. There could at least be more options about the buying. For example, why can I not buy a proper Soviet Guards Tank regiment, which would contain all the ingredients of such a regiment? Or a waffen SS Panzer Regiment with its mixture of infantry, tanks and mortars??

Voriax -> (7/7/2000 3:52:00 PM)
The pricing is currently under discussion also in the OOB team mailing list. I've been toying with a formula where armour, speed, main gun penetration etc could be taken in and get even halfway reasonable figures. The 'I feel' figure is also hard to implement [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] I'll put a quote from Paul V. considering how the rarity of equipment will be handled in the pricing: "Rarity is not a factor to be considered." Voriax

Arralen -> (7/9/2000 9:26:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Voriax: I'll put a quote from Paul V. considering how the rarity of equipment will be handled in the pricing: "Rarity is not a factor to be considered." And IMO this is the only way to measure some "point value". Besides, "Rarity" is closely related to "Production Cost". And what else than "Production Cost" do you measure when calculating points from armor, gun, movement, ammo, etc. etc. ? Arralen

Tombstone -> (7/10/2000 9:52:00 AM)
NO!! No more of this non-performance based point value talk... This is madness. Points are a made up element of SPWAW because it is a GAME. If you want to limit what you buy based on historical availability then you should write up a table of units vs. dates and roll dice based on %'s that you feel are accurate or something. That way the historical/economical situation that you thirst for can be modelled. For the rest of us we're looking for a system that tells us that this unit costs X because it's value on the battlefield is X. Tomo

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.828125