Off-Board Arty and Naval Assets: Too Cheap?

[KG Erwin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Jamminji is a brilliant man.[&o]

[Goblin]

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]

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]

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

Those suckers are great..

[KG Erwin]

Yes, they are great, but very expensive.

[OberJager]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.