Charles22
Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline
|
Victor: Earlier I was stating that I thought you has left your senses. I now know why. You basically stated that this sytem is "performance" based, however, you somewhat spoke in error as I view it. Your very complaint, that was designed to show how it's NOT performance-based enough for you, proved my point; it isn't performanc-based. I think what you were really trying to say, was that the SP series has always been performance-based, without saying that, and that you thought this one was the smae way. I, however, didn't know the method they were using, but I was only trying to say that it obviously wasn't based on this testing idea you have, though whether that is their intention or nor still remains debateable.
Sorry, bud, but if I want to talk about what I think might make a better system, refused or not by the powers that be, I will continue to do so, but I suspect not. Instead, however, I will show to some extent the silliness of basing it on mere AI meeting engagements.
Do you realize, that if we follow your test, to the letter, just how disasterous that is to this game? Others have spoken on how they would never buy a Tiger that expensive, but as well, what about the KV-1E? I would like to think you're not anti-German in your focus, but every idea you've had focuses on downing German arms. Considering some of the things you've said, there seems to be something of a mission to trash German OOB's. I hope not. I hope it's just the result of your always playing "against" the Germans, that has made you realize just how strong they are, and that you want adjustments. For example, I don't hear you complaining on how expensive the Italian tanks are in comparison to the T34's. The Italians don't stand a chance, and yet they're basically have no pricing advantages.
Given that your focus has been on Soviet forces, it's at least the direction you're coming from at the moment, but just because you might have a disdain for the Germanphile out there doesn't make the Soviets immune to the same butchery of the pricing. I've already pointed out the HUGE, much HUGER, discrepancy between the KV-1E and the PZIIIH.
I'll tell you how they basically came up with the pricing. It was done basically by class of armor. Notice how the heavies are always the most expensive, though they may not have had the best "performance" necessarily. The failure in the T34/85 vs. Tiger comparison, is that we have two different classes and we're expecting, if we apply the difference in performance to the loser of the battle, to knock down the T34/85 to the cost of the light tank class. I admit, in error, that I regarded the T34/85 as something of the Tiger equivalent. Already the similarity in gun is apparent, but I had imagined, like with most tanks, particularly the German ones, that they had uparmored it as well; apparently not.
So let's say the Tiger becomes 3X more expensive to accomodate winning by that margin to the T34/85 (which of course an actual 3-to-1 test was done, in which the Tiger didn't measure up). What do you do, when I assasinate the T34/85, by going "out-of-class and comparing that medium tank to sya a PZIIL? The contest has slaughter written all over it. And yet that's the same test we're giving to the Tiger (though certainly not as gross). Surely, if someone out there is going to sabotage German arms, believe me the Soviets are wide-open as well, as the KV-1E test shows. I see you haven't made a comment about that, why? If you're for "really" achieving what you hope this system will envision, why not put a knife to the KV as well? I'm no friend of the SS, but your insistence to rid the label "elite" from them, which they've been known world-wide (for fighting elan), would lead me to question your objectiveness. Me? I'd love all the nations to have what may be right pricing, but if we apply such draconian measures, as your tests suggests, then perhaps you don't know what a can of worms you're opening. I'm sure the best vs. the best in my KV-1E test must have been a bit shocking, but that just shows you how this could end up. I've already made an attempt to explain how, when something beats something, what do you do to the unit who has the cost adjusted, either then gets slaughtered or slaughters against still another opponent?
If there's any sense of fairness with this performance system that some want to operate, even out-of-class, then realize that not only must the Tiger need be adjusted (or cheaper T34/85), but so will the KV-1E, and even more so.
You see what the problem here is? You can't center unit cost on it's performance against one unit, because if you lower T34/85 price to 1/3, what do you do when that same tank slaughters say an SGIIIG by a 2-to-1 margin? Do you then raise the T34/85 to double it's price, which largely negates the adjustment from the Tiger battles? You can't possibly be fair about this and use such a system.
Personally, I hate having to pay so much, that early in the war for a KV-1E, for I can and do campaign with practically all nationalities, though Gerry is my favorite. I like the USSR probably 2nd best, not only because it has some really good stuff, and not only because it was another country which could've conquered possibly a great deal more than it did, but because they're the main Gerry antagonist. Only short of Gerry campainging is my desire to campaign Soviet and face a combination of Gerry/Italy/Rumania (or take the choice of minor Axis allies in additon to Gerry). So you see, it's difficult for me to see Rusky treated unfairly, if that is the deal, but on the other hand, I sure don't want Gerry treated that way, particularly, when Gerry was in their fullest bloom, when their equipment was often second to none (unlike in the KV1 days). You see? I feel cheated as a Gerry campaigner, to have suffered through the tough periods, where the strategic situation doesn't help me because we play tactical, and then when my forces get really good, for someone to put a clamp on them. I would feel equally as frustrated playing Rusky, to have poor early troops and then not be able to halfway depend on the KVs and T34s because they had been priced out of practical existence by comparisons to Gerry, or worse yet to some weak nation that doesn't even have adequate medium tanks.
Sorry, I have to shatter what may seem to be a good system, but the performance tests just can't work across the board, unless, that is, if we can get a consensus of people out there to trample over German pricing (or any one nation). I'm sure I could run the Tiger against American tanks, and the pricing would might be somewhere along the lines of the KV-1E battle. You can't price a unit to reflect fair pricing against all comers, no way.
BTW, I wish I had a scanner, for I could show y'all a picture of a Tiger that had it's top removed, and you would see just how thick that turret armor is in the front.
[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 07-02-2000).]
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
- 
I'm eager and ready to continue these discussions regarding performance-based unit prices.
I realize that adjusting unit prices might very well be a "neverending" work in progress.
Perhaps an SPWAW-sponsered (and moderated) tournament could be set up so that a variety of battles could be fought. And having the participants include comments as to why they bought and fought with the units they purchased might provide additional input/insight into "unit pricing" issues.
- 
The main thing is to set up the relative costs as to provide the best possible gaming experience.
------------------
Fabio Prado [email]fprado@fprado.com[/email]
Webmaster - 
- 
- 
)
Have fun!
Spanjab
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread