Page 3 of 4
RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread
Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 10:56 pm
by Charles2222
rbrunsman: BTW, sorry for the lack of quoting you on my previous post. I meant to do that but hit the wrong button. I was responding to this one:
Frank W, WHY do you disagree?
PBEMs rely upon being able to pit equally matched forces against each other. The old "buy point" system ensured that. The new system takes out all sense of balance for PBEM. It would take much trial and error (and argument) for two players to arrive at what is to be considered an equal battle. Two players who don't know each other and just want a quick matchup cannot do so any more if this "availability" point system is adopted. The "historical accuracy" crowd (I guess) would argue that this new point system forces players to buy appropriately. But why should "appropriate" purchases be the Holy Grail of PBEM battles. As long as the points are equal then everyone can further refine their desires from there. This new system absolutely cuts out the players like myself, who aren't a gung-ho about historical accuracy. I just want a fair matchup.
No one else is hurt (that I can think of) to leave the point system the way it was. The new system harms PBEMers and does nothing special to further the game.
Draconian dictation of "historical" accuracy serves what purpose?
RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread
Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 10:58 pm
by JJKettunen
ORIGINAL: Frank W.
perhaps i´m stupid ? who knows
LOL! Can't argue with that.[:D] [;)]
ORIGINAL: Frank W.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..
Do note that most Soviet stuff *is* cheaper with capability based unit pricing...
RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread
Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 10:59 pm
by Charles2222
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?
There you go.
RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread
Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:02 pm
by Goblin
Couldn't help but notice that other people are allowed to make snide comments on the new OOB thread. Not me or some other terrorist types though...
Goblin
RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread
Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:40 pm
by KG Erwin
Posted by Keke:
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread (in reply to KG Erwin)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Users viewing this topic: Keke, harlekwin, Rune Iversen, KG Erwin
_____________________________
Furthermore, this is directed at three members--we know who they are, they know who they are, so the rest of you should not let these guys screw up this community.
RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread
Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:43 pm
by KG Erwin
Posted by Rune Iversen:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Keke
quote:
Users viewing this topic: Keke, harlekwin, Rune Iversen, KG Erwin
Furthermore, this is directed at three members--we know who they are, they know who they are, so the rest of you should not let these guys screw up this community.
RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread
Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:45 pm
by Rune Iversen
ORIGINAL: Goblin
Couldn't help but notice that other people are allowed to make snide comments on the new OOB thread. Not me or some other terrorist types though...
Goblin
Obviously somebody is more equal than others around here. But who am I to complain[;)]
RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:07 am
by Goblin
ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
Posted by Keke:
RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread (in reply to KG Erwin)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Users viewing this topic: Keke, harlekwin, Rune Iversen, KG Erwin
_____________________________
Furthermore, this is directed at three members--we know who they are, they know who they are, so the rest of you should not let these guys screw up this community.
My comment was related to Frank W's post calling people Tiger Kiddies. But you proved my point perfectly, thanks.
If you are going to enforce a rule as a moderator, how about enforcing it equally? Or maybe actually typing out a list of who a certain rule will affect? Thanks.
Goblin
RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:31 am
by KG Erwin
Posted by Frank W:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay
GOOD POINT!!!!!
the "tiger kiddies" - (c) by ammo sgt. -
will not agree
RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:06 am
by Tombstone
Frank, I'm sorry man but your argument is awfully flawed. Do you play a lot of PBEM? It's like you just dont get it. It is a simple fact of it being a game that people play against each other. Unit selection is an axis of control for the players in a head to head situation demands that there are rules to define fairness. Assigning point values that represent in-game effectiveness is the easiest AND best way to do it. It not only means that you can choose the exact ratio of effectiveness between the two players (which is often going to be 1:1), but it also means that players can understand what the makers of the game have made to be the range between least and most effective unit. Although the points thing does have an impact on scenarios it is small in comparison to multiplayer. I cant imagine that you've played a lot of SPWAW head to head. If you haven't, what do you care what the pricing scheme is like? For campaign purchases? Even then it breaks down. Campaign battles adjust to the value of the units you have. You aren't making the right game development decision if you think that a rare unit should bring the ai down on you harder. That's ridiculous. It needs to be based on in-game effectiveness and nothing else, or else you have no reason for the pricing scheme in the first place. Is this discussed so intensively elsewhere? It just seems proposterous to me. Whenever people think about games they think about how a RESULT is undesirable, they never think about WHY a system exists and what role it plays in the overall game design. Whoah, sorry... this is starting to sound like beginning of a rant about MY job.
Tomo
Tomo
RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 1:08 pm
by Frank W.
tombstone: i play mostly PBM, but started the H2H stalingrad camp and
also play the 7.1 russian steel camp ( battle no. 31 b.t.w ) - my best unit
is a KV with now 200 kills [:)]
did i do something wrong with the comment to "tiger kiddies" ?
this is just something i took over from the former poster
"ammo sgt." hope you don´t mind and don´t take it that serious
you little kiddies [:'(]
RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 pm
by Tombstone
Ok, so you play a lot of pbem games... do you play mosty(only?) scenarios against others? I'm not challenging your experience with SP#-SPWAW, I'm not attacking you... however vehemently I disagree with you.
Tomo
RE: The Bitch and moan about oob's thread
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 7:06 pm
by Frank W.
ORIGINAL: Tombstone
Ok, so you play a lot of pbem games... do you play mosty(only?) scenarios against others? I'm not challenging your experience with SP#-SPWAW, I'm not attacking you... however vehemently I disagree with you.
Tomo
no mostly random generated maps.
i only played one scen the last time, named "steel shield"
we can play a game if you want...( only H2H 7.1 )
Sturmtigers, cost in PBEM
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2004 11:26 am
by mine_field
BTW, I'm pretty new. Hello everyone.
In regards to the pricing based on combat ability, or pricing based on representing what an army could afford to bring to the battle because of national characteristics or rarity, I can see both sides. As a newb, I just want to say to those of you that disregard rarity and opt for a "unrealistic historical representation," couldn't you just play the the same nation against itself? No problems with unit equality there.
As far as starting to price units based on rarity, you begin to run into some problems with the middle road. For units made in excess of 100, how do you factor in rarity? Pricing could just as well be based on manhours required for the vehicle, the tonnage of the vehicle, the % of resources that vehicle cost per that nations Gross National Product during that year, etc.
I do agree that some units should be discouraged from PBEM play by increasing their cost. The prime example of this is the SturmTiger. Ten (read ten as in the number above 9) were ever sent into combat. They were not used as an assualt gun but rather as a SP Arty piece against heavy emplacements. To find them blowing up infantry on the battlefield is not only disregarding their rarity, it is disregarding their role. But that isn't even the biggest problem! (enter bitch and moan) If the SturmTiger took 10 minutes to reload (and it did), and a SPWAW round simulates several minutes (and it does), then the Rate of Fire should be 2 minutes / 10 minutes or 0.2. Not the 2.0 that it is currently rated at. Give me an Allied on-board arty piece with its rate of fire times ten, and then I will leave the sturmtiger's oob alone.
In regards to the KingTiger's production, figures follow below. (assuming you mean PzKpfw VI Ausf B, since King Tiger was an allied nickname).
German Production by Henschel
______1942__ 1943__ 1944____ 1945
Total_________3______377____107
RE: Sturmtigers, cost in PBEM
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2004 6:24 pm
by Frank W.
ORIGINAL: mine_field
BTW, I'm pretty new. Hello everyone.
In regards to the pricing based on combat ability, or pricing based on representing what an army could afford to bring to the battle because of national characteristics or rarity, I can see both sides. As a newb, I just want to say to those of you that disregard rarity and opt for a "unrealistic historical representation," couldn't you just play the the same nation against itself? No problems with unit equality there.
As far as starting to price units based on rarity, you begin to run into some problems with the middle road. For units made in excess of 100, how do you factor in rarity? Pricing could just as well be based on manhours required for the vehicle, the tonnage of the vehicle, the % of resources that vehicle cost per that nations Gross National Product during that year, etc.
I do agree that some units should be discouraged from PBEM play by increasing their cost. The prime example of this is the SturmTiger. Ten (read ten as in the number above 9) were ever sent into combat. They were not used as an assualt gun but rather as a SP Arty piece against heavy emplacements. To find them blowing up infantry on the battlefield is not only disregarding their rarity, it is disregarding their role. But that isn't even the biggest problem! (enter bitch and moan) If the SturmTiger took 10 minutes to reload (and it did), and a SPWAW round simulates several minutes (and it does), then the Rate of Fire should be 2 minutes / 10 minutes or 0.2. Not the 2.0 that it is currently rated at. Give me an Allied on-board arty piece with its rate of fire times ten, and then I will leave the sturmtiger's oob alone.
In regards to the KingTiger's production, figures follow below. (assuming you mean PzKpfw VI Ausf B, since King Tiger was an allied nickname).
German Production by Henschel
______1942__ 1943__ 1944____ 1945
Total_________3______377____107
good post for a newbie [;)]
i mean those j.tigers + k.tigers are
not value for money. they are too slow !
but i can think of games in good weather with
good vis in which any opp of these monsters
will be quite in trouble...say vis 30 or so.
they can pick you up from the distance, if
you have no air force or fast reaction heavy
mortars to counter those it will be quite
impossible to advance....but perhaps i´m
too dumb. there are for shure players out
there who know the tricks to overcome such
situations ( reminds me i must still improve
my playing quite much [X(])
RE: Sturmtigers, cost in PBEM
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:11 pm
by mine_field
Ehh, thanks for the compliment.
Production figures were in reply to Frank W.'s
even more expensive perhaps than there
combat value because of the rarety...how
much KT´s were produced ? not that much
i think...
I understand your tactical analysis of the big beasts. I haven't used them enough to know much about them. I did just get my ass handed to me on a platter in single player campaign though. I had a nice ambush set up where 10-12 tanks and TD's were taking anything that came into the killzone, approximately 7-8 hexes away. Well one of these j.tigers comes in (unfortunately the ambush was all head on) and just whipes out the whole bottom half of the ambushing force. Wolverine, Jackson, Wolverine, Sherman, Sherman... all gone while this beast is slowly moving forward. The Nashornes and Panther V's were no help either (are the V's actually Tigers? I need to go re-read my own information).
No doubt you are right though about trying to get at one of those from a distance. When you reach ranges where their range finders and fire control measures give them impunity, it becomes quite a trick to approach them.
My scenario was due mainly to my own dumb self, partly because I was really tired. I'm going to 'cheat' and go play it again. Couldn't even repair my forces after that battle. Marginal Victory though. VH's and all that destroyed pretty German armor helped.
RE: Sturmtigers, cost in PBEM
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 2:33 am
by VonUngernSternberg
I wonder if it's just me.
As a PBEM and online player, I much prefer cost to be based on efficiency, rather than rarity. Why? Because it does allow for much more balanced battles if that is what you want, quick and easily.
And if you want to go full-out historical?
Well, in that case you can have a gentleman's agreement with your opponent to try and keep things somewhat realistic. You can even play meeting engagements in which one side has more points than the other, if you like. You can discuss with your opponent, in advance, the make-up of your troops - not the specifics, of course, but what initial recon might have told them. For example, I've done games in which we took pretty standard formations, with a few tweaks here and there, and told the other what generic kind of formation it was. For example, I was a ragtag mob of Volksgrenadier, a couple batallions with a little artillery and armor support, and my opponent played a big ol' American armored group hammering me through the snowy woods. And it was fun. If you want history, there's always talking things over.
The baseline should be balanced, and then people who want to set limitations on this balance can do it like adults, rather than enforcing whacky limitations on people.
RE: Sturmtigers, cost in PBEM
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 4:21 am
by KG Erwin
For h2h battle, why not let a third party set up the forces? I keep arguing for this, but players are too timid to accept it. I think it's funny that you guys are so unsure of yourselves. Viking would LOVE to do this--let him select the forces for you.
RE: Sturmtigers, cost in PBEM
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:07 am
by VikingNo2
Yes I would but I do strongly believe that the game should not link price to rarity[;)]
RE: Sturmtigers, cost in PBEM
Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:43 pm
by Wild Bill
I like the idea, Gunny! Having an arbiter or referee for this kind of game would be great!
WB