Charles22
Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000 From: Dallas, Texas, USA Status: offline
|
Victor has been talking about "performance" or "effectiveness" all this time, and then he accuses me of doing that (in another thread)? Let me make it quite clear, I think this "performance" based pricing is ridiculous, and my KV-1E battle proves that. I haven't the slightest intention of wanting the KV-1E's cost boosted in reparation to killing the Tiger by upping it's cost, but part of my point, in case we're a Russophile or something, is to note that most nations had their up and down periods with quality products. For the campaigner who wants something approaching reality in battles, he should want to suffer in the bad periods and be fully prepared for the good ones. Blasted, adjusting is half the fun. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FAIRNESS IN WAR. Imagine, for example that in adjustment to my illustrated battle and Victors, that we upped the KV-1E and Tiger dramatically. Where's the fear in facing a 1,000 point unit? It would cost so much, that noone would buy it (a lot of fun that would be), and if they did, they could be killed easily be mere infantry. If y'all want "fairness", then go play RTS, the hobby has suffered enough from RTS attack/counterattack units nonsense for too long. Perhaps "Sudden Strike" is the your cup of tea.
I'm into history, I want to have some feeling of what going against a real Tiger or real KV-1E is like, not making it so ridiculously "performance" based a fool would buy it. Interestingly enough, if one actually made the Tiger 3X the expense of the T34/85, even with this sorry AI ram into each other strategy, noone has proposed putting 60 T34/85s up against 20 Tigers, have they (should be a draw)? You might say, well that's unfair, surely being so outnumbered will destroy the Tigers by sheer shot volume alone, and it's true, and yet that's the very thing that's being proposed. Go ahead, put 60 vs. 20 (not that this is the point anyway) or do as Paul said and have half the points of Tigers, in engineers, coming up against Tigers, and see how lame this system is. Inevitable conclusion would lead you to making engineers more expensive than Tigers (which would be more expensive than T34/85s).
What I call for is NO battle related pricing, but IF ANYTHING DIFFERENT, material/production based pricing. At least there's some "history" with that. I realize, that in some respects, particularly when comparing Germany and Russia, that it may coincide with "performance" battle findings on occassion, but surely I've showed the foolhardiness of this "performance" nonsense.
Again, realize, that anytime you make a unit too expensive, noone will buy it. Do you really want that? Do you really want to NEVER face the most awesome unit (which BTW was probably constructed to counter the period when that nation was losing against their enemy's powerful unit)?
_____________________________
|