Point Values

[K K Rossokolski]

My point, perhaps not well made initially, is that in general, combat values in CS have held up pretty well over the years. There may well be some room for adjustment around the edges, but tripling the cost for losing a truck, or the reward for getting it off the exit objective is not adjustment, it is a fundamental realignment of values, based I believe on a perception of "rarity" rather than capability, and is wrong.

Here we agree entirely (almost). I would have added a new truck unit for use in future scenarios without affecting old ones. I do disagree with your choice of the word "rarity". I think that from the very beginning "value" was the measure of VPs, and that value was more complex than simple "combat values" in that it took into consideration supply from HQs, leadership bonuses, transport capability, mobility, etc.

umbro

That's good....rarity was not the best word, but I recall it, or perhaps "scarcity", ias used n an earlier discussion on truck value. No matter. I reiterate two points. Generally values of CS have held up well over time, and to me it defies logic and commonsense to suggest that all tanks are created equal, as it were. Is a Sherman Firefly
equal to an early Sherman. Of couse not. There was a need for a better tank, hence the Sherman was upgunned and uparmoured in various ways. The later Shermans were thus of greater value. Simple as that.

I would like to open a discussion of transport values in general, an area where CS has always had problems. Would a new thread be better?

[K K Rossokolski]

Guys;

I don't want to see discussions shut down, and will let them go until it gets out of hand. A member (not one participating in the discussion as a matter of fact) has reported this thread as getting personal. We're all grown ups I believe. We can, and should be able to, discuss points and disagree without having to resort to name calling to vent frustration. Please stay on point and be as charitable as you can when posting. We're all on the same side here (which would be the side of the hobby in case I'm being too vague).

Thank you gents;

Paul

Noted...but I'm a real old fashioned sort of bloke, and I always like to know the source of whisperings. If someone has a concern, let him say so openly. And I have read the words of both 'combatants' ....one of them myself......very carefully. Stronq words, aggrieved honour, self-righteousness, anger, frustration etc are all evident. But name-calling? I think not.

[RADO]

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I had no idea I was stirring up such a storm when I inquired about this!

- Greg

:stir:

[umbro]

Generally values of CS have held up well over time, and to me it defies logic and commonsense to suggest that all tanks are created equal, as it were. Is a Sherman Firefly equal to an early Sherman. Of couse not. There was a need for a better tank, hence the Sherman was upgunned and uparmoured in various ways. The later Shermans were thus of greater value. Simple as that.

I certainly agree with this wholeheartedly.

umbro

[Herr Straße Laufer]

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I had no idea I was stirring up such a storm when I inquired about this!

- Greg

:stir:

See Glint/Peter? Greg did it!

:rolleyes::chin:



RR ;)

[K K Rossokolski]

It seems to me that the next iteration of the CS game (assuming there is one other than tweaking the current JTCS) will have to seriously contemplate abandoning the old scenarios and just come up with a new consolidated plan to edal with issues like this. As cool as some of the new features are (and as incomprehensible as some of the others are), they can really stretch the core game mechanics past the breaking point when trying to apply them to all the old scenarios. When we have to have 6 or 7 different German 251/1 HTs to match 4 eras and 3 games (EFII, WF, and JTCS) worth of scenario development, it might be time to take the next step (or quit while we are still ahead).

Just my thoughts.
Mike

Without scenarios, CS does not exist. At present, on the Database there are 700+ WF, 600- EF and 200- RS. Total around 1500.
About 40 EF, 25 WF ,and 0 RS are marked with * or **, showing, I understand, known compatibility with JTCS. I believe a majority of the rest is playable. Whether they are any good is another matter, and in any event at least partly subjective. If they are technically playable, of what consequence is it that they do not use all the new stuff?

Abandoning this wonderful resource would really be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Abandoning this wonderful resource would really be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I wholeheartedly agree!

Ed

[Huib Versloot]

That's good....rarity was not the best word, but I recall it, or perhaps "scarcity", ias used n an earlier discussion on truck value. No matter. I reiterate two points. Generally values of CS have held up well over time, and to me it defies logic and commonsense to suggest that all tanks are created equal, as it were. Is a Sherman Firefly
equal to an early Sherman. Of couse not. There was a need for a better tank, hence the Sherman was upgunned and uparmoured in various ways. The later Shermans were thus of greater value. Simple as that.

I would like to open a discussion of transport values in general, an area where CS has always had problems. Would a new thread be better?

The extra value of the Sherman Firefly shows in game play because you need it for it's capabilities. What you won't feel in the game is if that Firefly would be 1vp more expensive than a regular Sherman when you lose one. You lose what the Firefly could do for you in the battle that is what counts. Trade a few Allied infantry platoons for the same number of German Volksgrenadiers and you can afford to lose another Firefly, pointwise that is. That shows how ridiculous the vp allocation system is at the moment. That's why I said make all tanks equal (or make a distinction between light med and heavy tanks) and let the designer display this difference in value (that I don't deny) in the victory conditions.
The other way would be to make a vp system that really reflects actual combat capabilities. In that case A Panther should be worth about 20-35 vp if a Sherman is 7, Volksgrenadiers should not have more value than US infantry etc etc. And even if you did that, morale is still not counted while it should be.
Or do nothing, since everybody is used to the current system, even I am.
I start to repeat myself... Hopefully my point is clear now.

By the way in PzC all vehicles and guns individually are worth the value of 10 men. That is the core problem of that game engine that ensures realistic simulations are impossible, since it is too simplistic. If I want CS to be more simple... I don't mean that simple.

Huib

[Von Earlmann]

Well said Steel God............

Now I have to ask does anyone really take the time to figure out all those sps and vps before finishing a scenario............God talk about Anal Retentive!..............just write the damn things............it's like the movie........."if you build it they will come"...........if the damn scenario is fun to play...........they will play it......all the rest is either a waste of time or designed to give everyone a warm fuzzy :-)

Ok so I'm low on fiber :-)

von Earlmann

[K K Rossokolski]

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I had no idea I was stirring up such a storm when I inquired about this!

- Greg

:stir:

Greg...remember the Law of Unintended Consequences. There are quite a few people here with strong opinions and deep concerns about where the game is going. :soap: Hardly surprising things get a bit heated. Try watching Question Time in our Federal Parliament ....like rabid dogs, sometimes. :mad: