OOBs

Galka · Post by **Galka** » Sat Nov 17, 2001 12:07 pm

Originally posted by Colonel von Blitz:
Hi everyone!
I decided to release my modified OOBs, I have some more ideas for modifications but I will wait v7.0 OOBs before making any more changes. Until then, comments about my modifications are more than welcome.

Get them, and Peregrine Falcons excellent sound files too, at:

http://www24.brinkster.com/vonblitz/spwawsounds.htm

Colonel von Blitz

[ November 14, 2001: Message edited by: Colonel von Blitz ]

Thanks Von Blitz.

A regular player and I will give them a try in PBEM. What might be nice for future release might be tank hunter teams of 2 or 3 men.

Say , I can't find those bunkers that hold 160 men. Did you say they were in the Czech screen?

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Sat Nov 17, 2001 7:25 pm

Except Lt Mortars?

I will check that out - thanks stuart

Colonel von Blitz · Post by **Colonel von Blitz** » Sun Nov 18, 2001 6:49 pm

Originally posted by Galka:
Say , I can't find those bunkers that hold 160 men. Did you say they were in the Czech screen?

Don't have SPWaW installed on this computer, so I can't check. But if I remember correctly you can find the bunker with carry capacity of 160 from Czech screen, under Misc and under Fort-button, I believe it's called "bomb shelter" there <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> . But of course, as with all forts, you can buy them only if game type is Assault/defend.

Colonel von Blitz

Jacc · Post by **Jacc** » Sun Nov 18, 2001 9:58 pm

And you can always do the dirty trick: buy some Wurfrahmer 40s and ammu dumps - and any enemy tank on your path is busted.

Colonel von Blitz · Post by **Colonel von Blitz** » Mon Nov 19, 2001 3:35 pm

Originally posted by James Coscinu:
And you can always do the dirty trick: buy some Wurfrahmer 40s and ammu dumps - and any enemy tank on your path is busted.

If someone wants to ruin the game by playing like an a**hole, then that's his/her business...it's too bad there are individuals who do this <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

Colonel von Blitz

Galka · Post by **Galka** » Wed Nov 21, 2001 2:15 pm

Originally posted by Colonel von Blitz:

If someone wants to ruin the game by playing like an a**hole, then that's his/her business...it's too bad there are individuals who do this <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

Colonel von Blitz

Problem is Von Blitz, if your not an ass and buy the rotten werfers, and rare tanks, and elite infantry; the other guy will. And then you'll be a schmuck. Which is worse?

I was changing some OOB values when I ran into a cap. It seems that the game doesn't accept more than 255 points for an AFV.

It's too bad, because leveling the playing field is going to be the only way to make PBEM fair.

Colonel von Blitz · Post by **Colonel von Blitz** » Wed Nov 21, 2001 8:58 pm

Originally posted by Galka:
Problem is Von Blitz, if your not an ass and buy the rotten werfers, and rare tanks, and elite infantry; the other guy will. And then you'll be a schmuck. Which is worse?

It's too bad, because leveling the playing field is going to be the only way to make PBEM fair.

I disagree. People should start agreeing the rules before they play. It shouldn't be that hard talking to your opponent and for example agree to use historical units and compositions, agree that one can use rocket launchers but use them only once without reloading them...or if it's a long lasting battle, agree that after firing, you can use them again after...let's say after 15 or 20 turns or so.

All I hear is whining, whining and more whining how the game is unbalanced. Game is unbalanced if one buys million Maus tanks and 500 thousand wurfrahmens.

I've never had problems in my PBEM games, because me and my opponents agree the rules BEFORE playing. For example, I have currently underway a quite a large battle (map size 100x240, points for both ~7000), and we agreed to play using historical OOBs and TO&Es...I have soviet heavy tank brigade + Anti-tank regiment and my opponent has...only god knows, I believe there will be Tigers. But that's ok, because he has to buy also CS-panzers as they were part of Schweres Panzer Kompanies. This means that there will be no Tigers worth 7000 points, which also means that the battle will be quite balanced.

Come on! Agree on rules and units allowed before playing and stop whining about unbalanced game <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Colonel von Blitz

[ November 21, 2001: Message edited by: Colonel von Blitz ]</p>

Warhorse · Post by **Warhorse** » Wed Nov 21, 2001 10:27 pm

Yeah, it really helps to communicate about parameters! I have not run into one person yet, who whines about parameters, this one guy I've played many times now, usually kicks my butt, but his forces are always very realistic, this time he has a nice mixture of Pz Ivg and IVH, and yes, at least one tiger that I can see, but never hordes of the stuff, very enjoyable!!

Galka · Post by **Galka** » Sat Nov 24, 2001 2:17 pm

Originally posted by Colonel von Blitz:

All I hear is whining, whining and more whining how the game is unbalanced

Colonel von Blitz

But last week you said....

3. Changing the whole cost-system is what I'd prefer, but the amount of work to be done to achieve this is overwhelming. So I choose to price units as now, but I trust players to know about the actual rarity of different equipment and hope that players buy stuff that isn't necessarily state-of-the-art but what was actually used at that time

Colonel von Blitz

[/QUOTE]

I dunno. I still think that If a Tiger Kill ratio against T-34s is 4:1, it should cost four times as much. That would save a lot of extra communications and potential misunderstanding between players.

I understand about TO&Es, but how often in the real war did full strength regiments and battalions go up against each other? And what of a Kampfgruppe, a common yet non-tabled fighting group.

I think it's great that your opponents and you have wonderfully balanced games. Would you play a game with me, to demonstrate your methods?

asgrrr · Post by **asgrrr** » Sat Nov 24, 2001 4:58 pm

I have to agree that the cost of units should be assigned more creatively. I remember Panzer general and the sickly pricing system (entirely based on the factors). Even if a piece of equipment is completely useless, that does not of itself reduce the cost of its procurement. Of course, with the number of units this is A LOT of work, and questionable if this would be worth the effort. The rarity factor also makes this less relevant, as you can't spend all your points on tigers anymore. If the rarity system could be expanded a little, with more differential values, I would be content with the present pricing system.

pax27 · Post by **pax27** » Sat Nov 24, 2001 6:33 pm

I don´t play alot of PBEM´s but I just have to raise a question of the proposed "you should get the same killing power for the same point cost" from Galka.
Wouldn´t this mean that the only battles one would fight is ones where you could beat any major country with any piece of dirt equipment. If it takes a thousand 28mm AT´s to wipe out a Tiger, should the cost of a Tiger be a thousand times that of the 28mm AT unit? And how difficult wouldn´d this system be to implicate! I´m exaggerating ofcourse, but only to get my point through <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
I´d say a system like this would completly negate the advantages of playing different nations in different stages of the war, and it would definitely make it pointless to buy a Tiger or equivalent.
Were talking golf handicap here <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">
Again, I don´t play alot of PBEM, and maybe this is what you look for in a game in that type of game.

Galka · Post by **Galka** » Sat Nov 24, 2001 9:31 pm

Originally posted by pax27:
I don´t play alot of PBEM´s but I just have to raise a question of the proposed "you should get the same killing power for the same point cost" from Galka.
Wouldn´t this mean that the only battles one would fight is ones where you could beat any major country with any piece of dirt equipment.
Again, I don´t play alot of PBEM, and maybe this is what you look for in a game in that type of game.

Well, this certainly is a PBEM issue.

Hey , I'm not saying I'd like Italy to take on the Ruskies in an armoured battle and win every time. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

I'd like to see an incentive for players to select units that represented standard equipment used in mass during WW2.

Example.

Right now it might not be prudent to pit a M4A1 against a Tiger. That's because Tigers can be had for less than a 2:1 cost ratio, when there killing power when played correctly is more like 4 or 6:1.

If a Tiger cost 4 times as much and a MkIV was nearly equalivent in cost to a M4, the incentive is to purchace fewer Tigers and more MkIV's. (But a skilled player could on average take out 6 or more M4's if playing the Tigers role correctly).

[ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: Galka ]</p>

john g · Post by **john g** » Sat Nov 24, 2001 10:51 pm

Originally posted by Galka:

Well, this certainly is a PBEM issue.

Hey , I'm not saying I'd like Italy to take on the Ruskies in an armoured battle and win every time. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

I'd like to see an incentive for players to select units that represented standard equipment used in mass during WW2.

Example.

Right now it might not be prudent to pit a M4A1 against a Tiger. That's because Tigers can be had for less than a 2:1 cost ratio, when there killing power when played correctly is more like 4 or 6:1.

If a Tiger cost 4 times as much and a MkIV was nearly equalivent in cost to a M4, the incentive is to purchace fewer Tigers and more MkIV's. (But a skilled player could on average take out 6 or more M4's if playing the Tigers role correctly).

[ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: Galka ]

This topic comes up every couple of months. People that don't like the point value system because they feel they are spending too much for x equipment vs y equipment.

Look at it this way, since a bazooka armed unit can take out a tiger with one shot, it should by your reasoning cost as much as the tiger, and since a hmg can take out dozens of bazooka teams then it should cost 12 times as much as a bazooka team. Leading to the rediculous situation of a hmg costing 12 times as much as a tiger or nearly 50 times as much as a sherman.

Rock paper sissors comparisons don't work you have to compare similar weapons used in the same manner.

The only unit type I have issues with the cost are the ammo dump/carrier, due to their ability to expand the combat power of friendly units via reloads I would cost them about 1000 points for the dump and 600 for the carriers. That would stop the wurf/ammo carrier combo that is the bane of anyone fighting Germans.

Perhaps the current formula understates the importance of armor thickness, or weapon accuracy, but it comes out in wash.

If you are willing to recalculate values for every unit in the game and submit them for approval, then perhaps your argument has merit.
thanks, John.

pax27 · Post by **pax27** » Sat Nov 24, 2001 11:33 pm

You´re making my point john g, but maybe the range on 1-250 is not enough though. And I do understand what Galka want´s with this discussion.
But in real life (most guys/gals on this forum is heavily in to realism) the cost of differnt tanks from idea to battle field differed a lot. Some nations were just better at the logistics of war I guess. I seem to remember someone mentioning the US in that area... well, quantity before quality has to pay off in some areas <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
And while we´re discussing costs, wouldn´t a support unit in Poland be a lot less expencive then one in North Africa?

Galka · Post by **Galka** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 10:14 am

Originally posted by john g:

Look at it this way, since a bazooka armed unit can take out a tiger with one shot, it should by your reasoning cost as much as the tiger....

If you are willing to recalculate values for every unit in the game and submit them for approval, then perhaps your argument has merit.
thanks, John.

Well I apologise if I implied that every unit had to be rehashed. My idea was to deal with the glaring anomalies within the current otherwise sound cost structure.

I suggest that at least 10 veteran PBEM players are needed to playtest a series of OOBs before matrix is approached to consider the new values.

The idea is that the 10 testers will list all units that they feel need a adjustment (limited in increments of up to 10%) until overall balance is acheived unanimously. This approach I feel is better than relying on the bias of one individual.

The 10 testers would have to be willing to play others via PBEM/Online, over a period of time which could last months.

BTW, about the Tiger and the Bazooka. If you leave a Tiger unprotected so that a Bazooka, Molotov, Panzerfaust, or Grenade wielding infantry could get that close, It's a failure on your part not the systems <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

The first units I'd bump up in price would be
Tigers I and II (Subject to a point cap of 255)
Elephant/Ferd/Sturmtiger
Nashorn/other 88 and 128mm eq AFVs
Panther Variants
SdKfz 11
Onboard Nebel, and Werfer units Katytushas and the like.
Ammo dumps and Carriers
88At Variant, US 90mm At(to discourage use).
All Mobile Flame units.

Colonel von Blitz · Post by **Colonel von Blitz** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 3:45 pm

3. Changing the whole cost-system is what I'd prefer, but the amount of work to be done to achieve this is overwhelming. So I choose to price units as now, but I trust players to know about the actual rarity of different equipment and hope that players buy stuff that isn't necessarily state-of-the-art but what was actually used at that time.

These are my words and meaning was that I'd like to change the cost system, not because I feel that the game is unblanced. Balance can be achieved in very different ways. I meant that on the other hand I'd like to see cost system that is built for every country so that it would reflect the actual composition of their army (common equipment is cheaper and rarer units would cost more, now units are more priced similarily for every country (more armour and heavier gun, more expensive).

Originally posted by Galka:
I dunno. I still think that If a Tiger Kill ratio against T-34s is 4:1, it should cost four times as much. That would save a lot of extra communications and potential misunderstanding between players.

I do not find this useful, as one of the posts show...Bazooka can kill a Tiger in on e shot, thus it should cost as much as tiger. One HMG can kill twelve Bazookas, thus HMG must cost 12 times as much as Tiger etc. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

I understand about TO&Es, but how often in the real war did full strength regiments and battalions go up against each other? And what of a Kampfgruppe, a common yet non-tabled fighting group.

Units were full strength about 5% of the time (wild guestimate <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> ). I didn't mean that one should buy units while other eye is looking at the TO&Es. Use creativity but bearing realism in mind.

In my current PBEM game I have Soviet Heavy Tank Brigade: 42 x KV-1S, 1 x Mot Inf Btn (two companies), 1 x 82mm mortar bty, 1 x 37mm AA-Gun Bty. In addition, I have one AT rgmt, 16 x 76mm ATGs. I dunno if this kind of group ever existed, but main point is that it was composed of REALISTIC brigades and regiments. I had possibility to buy million ( <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> ) batteries of 203mm howitzers and with that arty, one can blow away several Tiger-Battalions...though Soviets had a lot of arty, I didn't buy that amount of howitzers <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

I think it's great that your opponents and you have wonderfully balanced games. Would you play a game with me, to demonstrate your methods?

Sure thing, I can usually do 1 turn/day or 1 turn/two days...

E-Mail me: jarno.harma@lut.fi

Colonel von Blitz

john g · Post by **john g** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 6:50 pm

Originally posted by Galka:

BTW, about the Tiger and the Bazooka. If you leave a Tiger unprotected so that a Bazooka, Molotov, Panzerfaust, or Grenade wielding infantry could get that close, It's a failure on your part not the systems <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

The first units I'd bump up in price would be
Tigers I and II (Subject to a point cap of 255)
Elephant/Ferd/Sturmtiger
Nashorn/other 88 and 128mm eq AFVs
Panther Variants
SdKfz 11
Onboard Nebel, and Werfer units Katytushas and the like.
Ammo dumps and Carriers
88At Variant, US 90mm At(to discourage use).
All Mobile Flame units.

So any unit you don't like fighting against is costed more?

How about ob 380mm arty, US .1 delay fo's, or any bomber carrying 1000lb bombs?

To expand on your comment about anyone letting the AT team getting close, how about anyone who lets that Tiger sit off at range with a perfect los blasting away without smoking it's view or suppressing it with arty or aircraft attack? That tank is worthless if it has been bombed back to the stoneage, which the the US does quite well. At which point an M10 rolls up and blows a hole in it without chance of retribution.

Tanks are just smoking heaps of scrap metal if attacked correctly, no matter what they cost to buy.
thanks, John.

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 11:03 pm

IF any of you guys want to take a look at the v7 oobs and see what has been changed price wise (I rehashed the formula once again) Let me know.

A couple things:

If you want the cost to mean something in pbem it has to based on the "game model" of the unit - ie the values in the OOB. THe "formula" I use (actually a a whole spreadsheet of formulas) does this on a "even" basis within main types. Then the types (arty, tanks, inf, etc) are scaled to each other a bit. So costs have nothing to do with how many were produced or King Tigers would cost 1000 and T-34s 10.

Value in battle is not a static thing, so any attempt to give a single point value to a piece of equipment is fundamentally flawed, but its what folks are used to. So we muddle along the best we can.

Galka · Post by **Galka** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 12:24 am

Originally posted by john g:

So any unit you don't like fighting against is costed more?

Nope, I usually play German, and still find they have an advantage when weighed down with first rate armour. I just think they should pay for it.

To expand on your comment about anyone letting the AT team getting close, how about anyone who lets that Tiger sit off at range with a perfect los blasting away without smoking it's view or suppressing it with arty or aircraft attack? That tank is worthless if it has been bombed back to the stoneage, which the the US does quite well. At which point an M10 rolls up and blows a hole in it without chance of retribution.

This might seem like a silly question, but ..Do you think Tigers are too easy to kill?

In my experience M10s are not superior at range to Tigers. At present your 1000 pts gets you 6 Tigers and 8 M10s. It's no challenge for the Tigers to Pick off the M10s loosing one or two units in the process. Have 8 M10s, or 9 M4A1s on 3 Tigers, have a better chance, and reflect the reality of the Allies defeating the Axis with quantity.

Having the Tigers cost basis raised in increments of 10% and tested is better than a knee jerk 50-100% cost, which might lead to another imbalance.

Anyway I'm sorry if I seem to be picking a fight with you johng . Its just so glaringly evident when you can't get anybody as western allies to take on the mighty german wehrmacht.

Again this suggestion is for PBEM/Online players.

[ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: Galka ]</p>

Galka · Post by **Galka** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 1:46 am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Colonel von Blitz:
quote:

These are my words and meaning was that I'd like to change the cost system, not because I feel that the game is unblanced. Balance can be achieved in very different ways. I meant that on the other hand I'd like to see cost system that is built for every country so that it would reflect the actual composition of their army (common equipment is cheaper and rarer units would cost more, now units are more priced similarily for every country (more armour and heavier gun, more expensive).

Well, call it something other than balancing the game, but I agree. I take it then you'd like to see more battles fought with M4, MkIV, T-34 types?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Galka:
I dunno. I still think that If a Tiger Kill ratio against T-34s is 4:1, it should cost four times as much. That would save a lot of extra communications and potential misunderstanding between players.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not find this useful, as one of the posts show...

In my current PBEM game I have Soviet Heavy Tank Brigade: 42 x KV-1S, 1 x Mot Inf Btn (two companies), 1 x 82mm mortar bty, 1 x 37mm AA-Gun Bty. In addition, I have one AT rgmt, 16 x 76mm ATGs. I dunno if this kind of group ever existed, but main point is that it was composed of REALISTIC brigades and regiments. I had possibility to buy million ( ) batteries of 203mm howitzers and with that arty, one can blow away several Tiger-Battalions...though Soviets had a lot of arty, I didn't buy that amount of howitzers

ok, you know that you bought KV1s' instead of KV85s or heavier. How do I know? If I come to battle with Tigers , you're dead. If I come with MkIVs and you've KV85s I'm dead! Do you tell the other guy what he's up against?

Soviets without Artillery! I thought you said you were playing TO&E's <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Now about artillery and Tigers. You can throw all the artillery you want at me (it's most expensive), but you ain't gonna kill a Tiger Abeiltung with it. On the Steppe of Russia, on a typical day, no Sir.