Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

a) the rarety thing don´t works correct

b) some nations ( US + USSR come to mind ) had
much more men + machines as the axis so this
should be modelled to certain decree.

say a T34 should NOT cost the same as pzIV.
look up the H2H pricings i find them quite
okay...

I disagree entirely. The points value of a given unit should be based solely on its relative effectiveness. It is up to players and designers to then decide how many points they want to play with to reflect historical *availability* and/or play with rarity on. To use your example, the fact that more T-34s were made than Pz-IVs should not have any impact on their relative values - it doesn't make any difference to the performance of one vehicle compared to another. If you want to reflect the historical numbers, change the amount of points you purchase with, don't fudge the unit costs. To do so completely screws PBMers (which I am not one of, I just see their plight).

ORIGINAL: rbrunsman
The "historical accuracy" crowd (I guess) would argue that this new point system forces players to buy appropriately.

At least I don't. Scenario designers can make historical situations and set unit prices accordingly. If you add a "rarity" factor to the cost, instead of basing it exclusively on combat value, then PBEM is irretrevably messed up.

ORIGINAL: Frank W.
b) some nations ( US + USSR come to mind ) had
much more men + machines as the axis so this
should be modelled to certain decree.

Why should this fact be forced to non-historical PBEM-battles? After all, balance is one of the most important factors in them.

Frank I see your points they have merit but by linking the units price to rarity it makes all players conform to something and cuts out flexibility. It would be much better to fix the rarity function of the game than price them linked to rarity the way that is sugested and done in 8.1, because now the Rarity Off button means nothing with the new pricing you will always have "ratity on". I have no problem with H2H pricing mind you. RR are a prime example a 75mm RR cost as much as a 88mm AA gun. Your thoughts please

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

the national characteristics ( i think this
is what it´s called ) are somewhat screwed:

With this, I agree. National Characteristic are based on myths and anecdotes.

Well, I'm played SPWAW since 1999 and PBEM for about a year. I support the efficiency <=> point cost formula.

It would be very nice to have, say Soviet vs. german game, have the same amount of points and know that the combat efficiency of these two forces are on the same level.

This is the very key to enjoying the PBEM. This way we could measure the men behind the PC's, compete each other!!! This is the very thing we wanna do! Compare each other as leaders.

Now you can have, say, 10 Tigers (perhaps about 2000 points) and easily scorch those about 20 T-34's, which amount to 2000 points (ok, these are quite rough figures)

So choosing an 5k points per side doesn't, IMO, assure an even and tough play (though it can sometimes be even, if the terrain and weather favor the Soviets)

I usually play the Soviets, and have experienced this many times!
I'd love to have this point system back (it was in 6.1, right?)


Then finally, the rarity by cost - philosophy. It's no good. Because: Any wise player is very selective. He buys the very best equipment he can. So, even a minor increase in cost will drop a demand for a unit dramatically - no one cares to buy it anymore. So the result is not rarity, but absence of that unit.

Ever seen KV-85's on map in PBEM? It's roughly equal to T-34/85 and IIRC, more expensive...

OI have no problem with H2H pricing mind you. RR are a prime example a 75mm RR cost as much as a 88mm AA gun. Your thoughts please

this is silly of course...i don´t mean this way of pricing...

but the pricing like H2H...

tiger e: 175 points
panther g: 178
mk IV h : 117

T34 M43 : 82
T34 /85 : 97

seems in my eyes okay, see the T34/85
is a bit better than mkIVh but still
a bit cheaper...

He buys the very best equipment he can. So, even a minor increase in cost will drop a demand for a unit dramatically - no one cares to buy it anymore. So the result is not rarity, but absence of that unit.

mhh... but is the goal of this !

or do you want only have sturmtigers
and kingtigers around ? so these must
be a) rare ( if rarety works ) or
b) much more expensive ( if doesn´t ).

even more expensive perhaps than there
combat value because of the rarety...how
much KT´s were produced ? not that much
i think...

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

this is silly of course...i don´t mean this way of pricing...

but the pricing like H2H...

tiger e: 175 points
panther g: 178
mk IV h : 117

T34 M43 : 82
T34 /85 : 97

seems in my eyes okay, see the T34/85
is a bit better than mkIVh but still
a bit cheaper...

SPWW2 uses pricing based on overall capability only, no rarity factors involved. Double these prices by 2 for SPWAW:

Pz-IVh______58
T-34/85_____54

Now are there anything wrong with those figures?...

Come on, you know the answer to this. In fact, I've never seen anyone from the multi=player crowd who gave a clearer statement that single players and multi-players are at odds gamewise. I've always understood that multi=play always detracted from my games (worse AI for a start), so surely you know the answers to your questions.

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

mhh... but is the goal of this !

or do you want only have sturmtigers
and kingtigers around ? so these must
be a) rare ( if rarety works ) or
b) much more expensive ( if doesn´t ).

even more expensive perhaps than there
combat value because of the rarety...how
much KT´s were produced ? not that much
i think...

You obviosly don't get the main point here. When units are priced according to their overall capabilities, both sides know exactly how much overall combat power their units present, and balanced PBEMs are much easier to set. Otherwise one has to scrutinize every freaking unit to get most "bang for the buck"...

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Just a guess here, but a number of you have complained about the OOB team doing the OOB"s by 'feel'. Perhaps this OOB team is a backlash from the previous 'hard facts' teams of the past. 'Hard facts' alone, nor 'feel' alone, suffice.

How is common sense for starters?

I have been pondering the 150mm Pen of the 76.2 HEAT round for Ivan and it got me to thinking.....

The game does not properly model the wildly variable nature of HEAT penetration. A deviation of as little as 10% in the jet degrades penetration 30% or so IIRC.(I will dig up a table if able) Anyway point of impact and the surface have a lot to do with how the jet forms.

I understand that the engine will not handle and the model is NOT equipped to factor in deviations in point of impact rendering an effect on the formation of the jet, but my concern with the radical pen increase is that if anything barring a randomizer the drive should be to underrate not overrate HEAT rounds. Don't misunderstand I am not advocating a reduction in existing HEAT round stats but the radical increase leads to a performance that is in no way indicative of reality at all and has a chilling effect on tactics.

All of the powers understood the ease with which the era's heat rounds could have their damage reduced and took field expedient measures to do so. The game does not and cannot render the wildly variable nature of these expedients so what we are left with is a vastly overrated heat round engaging NO counter measures. I am not at this late date in the life of SPWAW advocating a radical shift just explaining the reasoning behind my resistance to the 150mm penetration.

HEAT rounds pen is given for a flush hit center mass on a body of steel. That happens like oh "never". I wish it did but wish in one hand and .....

you get the idea....

[;)]

Believe me if it were that easy SABOT would never have been invented.

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Just a guess here, but a number of you have complained about the OOB team doing the OOB"s by 'feel'. Perhaps this OOB team is a backlash from the previous 'hard facts' teams of the past. 'Hard facts' alone, nor 'feel' alone, suffice.

How is common sense for starters?

were it common it would NOT be as valued as it is....

Good discussion. I wish an "OOB master" would pipe up and share their (misguided) thoughts on the change they've decided to make.

The 57mm Recoiless Rifle is the best example of the sillyness this new pricing structure is.

For example: You have an uninitiated player who is brave enough to challenge a good player. The good player knows the ins and outs of this "availability" pricing scheme. The newbie doesn't. The newbie will not only lose the battle to the experienced player, he will literally get his ass handed to him on a plate. He has no idea why he got crushed when he bought those 80 point 57mm RRs compared to the German 88s that also cost 80pts (I'm guessing at the actual cost in v8.01). A discouraged newbie is a newbie that won't return.

And, Frank W., I don't put restrictions on what my opponent can buy and I hardly ever see KTs and SturmTigers. They just aren't that effective. It's not worth putting "all your eggs in one basket" by buying these units. Personally, I'd rather have the two platoons of infantry I can get rather than one King Tiger. To make them seriously more expensive to reflect their rarity, will mean that you will never see them except for in pre-made scenarios (as noted before by another poster), where, I might add, point costs are irrelevant. So, changing point costs only serves to eliminate the use of "rare" units from normal PBEM games. No one ever suggested PBEM is a re-creation of WWII. It is the scenario designers that simulate the real battles of WWII where point costs just don't matter.

Hello OOB people...

You obviosly don't get the main point here. When units are priced according to their overall capabilities, both sides know exactly how much overall combat power their units present, and balanced PBEMs are much easier to set. Otherwise one has to scrutinize every freaking unit to get most "bang for the buck"...

i don´t need to know the price of a unit, as
i know in the meantime the capabilities of most
units. perhaps for beginners this is point you
bring up here... like in these real time games:
you have a tank with 1 laser gun cost = 10 another
with 2 laser guns cost 20 or so...[8|]

but perhaps i understood you wrong....

what means "scrutinize" btw ? another
word for this ?

>>>>>>Good discussion. I wish an "OOB master" would pipe up and share their (misguided) thoughts on the change they've decided to make.

i think the masters won´t speak with us moaners and bitchers anymore [:(]

>>>>>For example: You have an uninitiated player who is brave enough to challenge a good player. The good player knows the ins and outs of this "availability" pricing scheme. The newbie doesn't. The newbie will not only lose the battle to the experienced player, he will literally get his ass handed to him on a plate. He has no idea why he got crushed when he bought those 80 point 57mm RRs compared to the German 88s that also cost 80pts (I'm guessing at the actual cost in v8.01). A discouraged newbie is a newbie that won't return.

i DON`T agree again [8D]

this should not be that easy game for everyone..
even a newbei must learn and look some days into
the unit database before starting play a rbrunsman
or viking numero 2

>>>>>And, Frank W., I don't put restrictions on what my opponent can buy and I hardly ever see KTs and SturmTigers. They just aren't that effective. It's not worth putting "all your eggs in one basket" by buying these units. Personally, I'd rather have the two platoons of infantry I can get rather than one King Tiger. To make them seriously more expensive to reflect their rarity, will mean that you will never see them except for in pre-made scenarios (as noted before by another poster), where, I might add, point costs are irrelevant. So, changing point costs only serves to eliminate the use of "rare" units from normal PBEM games. No one ever suggested PBEM is a re-creation of WWII. It is the scenario designers that simulate the real battles of WWII where point costs just don't matter.

THIS may be a valid point finally made by you

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

i don´t need to know the price of a unit, as
i know in the meantime the capabilities of most
units. perhaps for beginners this is point you
bring up here... like in these real time games:
you have a tank with 1 laser gun cost = 10 another
with 2 laser guns cost 20 or so...[8|]

but perhaps i understood you wrong....

Perhaps you just don't want to understand the point presented here. At least it seems so.

Since you know every freaking unit in detail, and what to buy and what not for a balanced PBEM, there should be a rarity factor included in unit prices. Is it just me, or does this argument of yours sound little...stupid?

ORIGINAL: Frank W.
what means "scrutinize" btw ? another
word for this ?

Definition:
1. [v] of accounts and tax returns; with the intent to verify
2. [v] to look at critically or searchingly, or in minute detail; "he scrutinized his likeness in the mirror."

Synonyms: audit, inspect, scrutinise, scrutinise, size up, take stock

See Also: analyse, analyze, canvass, examine, examine, see, study

[:D]

ORIGINAL: rbrunsman

Good discussion. I wish an "OOB master" would pipe up and share their (misguided) thoughts on the change they've decided to make.

The 57mm Recoiless Rifle is the best example of the sillyness this new pricing structure is.

For example: You have an uninitiated player who is brave enough to challenge a good player. The good player knows the ins and outs of this "availability" pricing scheme. The newbie doesn't. The newbie will not only lose the battle to the experienced player, he will literally get his ass handed to him on a plate. He has no idea why he got crushed when he bought those 80 point 57mm RRs compared to the German 88s that also cost 80pts (I'm guessing at the actual cost in v8.01). A discouraged newbie is a newbie that won't return.

And, Frank W., I don't put restrictions on what my opponent can buy and I hardly ever see KTs and SturmTigers. They just aren't that effective. It's not worth putting "all your eggs in one basket" by buying these units. Personally, I'd rather have the two platoons of infantry I can get rather than one King Tiger. To make them seriously more expensive to reflect their rarity, will mean that you will never see them except for in pre-made scenarios (as noted before by another poster), where, I might add, point costs are irrelevant. So, changing point costs only serves to eliminate the use of "rare" units from normal PBEM games. No one ever suggested PBEM is a re-creation of WWII. It is the scenario designers that simulate the real battles of WWII where point costs just don't matter.

Hello OOB people...

Unit prices matter in scenarios too, when losses are counted. That's why I said that scenario designers can set unit prices separately if need be.

>>>Since you know every freaking unit in detail, and what to buy and what not for a balanced PBEM, there should be a rarity factor included in unit prices. Is it just me, or does this argument of yours sound little...stupid?

perhaps i´m stupid ? who knows

but i think say a russian player should be able
to at least use the russian tactics.... so most
russian stuff should be cheaper compared to the
german´s...therefore they have better optics and
fire control, and mostly the better crews..

>>>>See Also: analyse, analyze, canvass, examine, examine, see, study

whow, the englsih language is more difficult
than i thought...need to learn more