Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap?

[Alby]

ORIGINAL: rbrunsman

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]

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]

Nothing works.


Goblin

[Kevin E. Duguay]

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]

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]

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

[rbrunsman]

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]

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]

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]

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

[rbrunsman]

I am very happy and I'll shut up about it now.

[:)]

[TheChin]

With the advent of Modswapper, is it too difficult to include 2 sets of OOBS? One with pure performance-based pricing and the other with availability-based pricing, while leaving all other stats the same? Sounds like alot of initial work, but it may be the ideal compromise.


Another idea that just came to me, and I'm sure has been realised by others already, is that it might be possible to make date specific oobs and load them in with modswapper. It wouldn't work so well for campaigns, but for one-off battles vs the AI or PBEM it might be cool. You start the game with the timeframe "mod" that you want to play and you get a set of oobs filled with units only available at that particular date, formations also for that matter. It would greatly increase space for tight countries like Germany and could introduce many new vehicle/squad "variants" that have been passed over due to space considerations. Of course, that is an incredible labor investment and I'm not sure if the return justifies the means.

[Goblin]

Thanks OOB team!


Goblin

[Roo]

I reckon that that would be best saved for SP:W@Ws replacement, Combat Leader.