Modern wargear limits ?

[Weasel]

Too much arty ruins a game. If you think about it, for about 250 pts you can get a battery of 155s which can fire at least 6 round per gun, times 4 guns, about 8 times in a game. That is a ton of firepower for the cost, especially when you compare it to a tank or something like that.

No, rules are not for everyone; but there are those who like to make the game more balanced.

I have always wished the game had chemical weapons and perhaps tactical nukes; that would be interesting.

[Fubar]

.....I've always wished the game had chemical weapons and perhaps tactical nukes; that would be interesting.

LOL......your thinking of C&C Generals aren't you. ;)

[Thesix]

No, rules are not for everyone; but there are those who like to make the game more balanced.

Yes, you're right, and Vesku too, but I think Alienxxx is right in asking a higher cost for these units.
If for the price of this same battery you can buy several inf companies plus support, it would be more simple than following rules which tend to create very similar oob on each side.

[Weasel]

Lots of things need to be reworked that is for sure. The experimental game rules, if you decide to use them, do not create the same game every time.

That is the nice thing about our ladder, a player can always get a game to his flavour; whether it be restricted buying or wide open games where anything goes. To pooh pooh on any one style of play is not correct and would only hurt the club.

[Thesix]

To pooh pooh on any one style of play is not correct and would only hurt the club.

Well, I hope you don't think it's what I'm doing
I was just saying that playing with units costs may help to correct some of the problems. As I said, I usually accept rules from opponents, I don't ask any.
I'm always afraid to not tell exactly what I'm thinking with a language which is not mine.;)

[Weasel]

To pooh pooh on any one style of play is not correct and would only hurt the club.

Well, I hope you don't think it's what I'm doing
I was just saying that playing with units costs may help to correct some of the problems. As I said, I usually accept rules from opponents, I don't ask any.
I'm always afraid to not tell exactly what I'm thinking with a language which is not mine.;)

Nope, didn't think so in the least.

[Walrus]

Hi Thesix

It is good that you make comments, especially if English is not your first language.
Respect!

There has been a lot of work done by the SPCAMO team to get the pricing correct. It is very difficult, especially when MBT runs from 1946 to 2020.
The early years units that you find too cheap are relative to the uber weapons of years 2000+

This game was made in 1990 and has been re-made many time since....but the code is still from 1990...so some things just cannot be changed.

This is the limit we face....sometimes things just are not a good simulation.

This is why the Designers have tried to add as many parameters as possible that can be changed by the players.
This way there is a chance to create ANY type of game you can wish for.

I understand what you are saying about using too many rules...but you should seriously consider the opinion of these very experienced PBEM players. They are always looking to make the game a test of skills between the players....not a battle that is dominated by one unit from one OOB from one side...which makes for a very boring battle.

In the end...you can decide with your opponent to have many rules...or none at all.

One time, I had a very enjoyable battle...25 snipers vs 25 snipers....very good fun. Other battles I have played have been only tanks...nothing else.
Anything is possible.
I imagine you could have a good battle using only attack helicopters and nothing else.

When you have played against one person for many battles, you create a set of "rules" that you both agree give the best game...the battle you are both wanting.
What Chris is trying to do is use his experience, and mine and Vesku's etc...to create a full set of rules for PBEM...IF YOU WISH TO USE THEM...and that is the important part.

In the end you can use some of these rules, all of them or none.
That is the great thing about this club, this ladder and this game....flexibility and a desire by those who are members to improve our games for all players.

I commend your efforts Chris and Vesa.
Hurrah!
I know that I will using these rules in the future...and in other games, perhaps only a few of them :-)

Cheers all
Jason

To pooh pooh on any one style of play is not correct and would only hurt the club.

Well, I hope you don't think it's what I'm doing
I was just saying that playing with units costs may help to correct some of the problems. As I said, I usually accept rules from opponents, I don't ask any.
I'm always afraid to not tell exactly what I'm thinking with a language which is not mine.;)

[Weasel]

.....I've always wished the game had chemical weapons and perhaps tactical nukes; that would be interesting.

LOL......your thinking of C&C Generals aren't you. ;)

No, do they use those? Never played C&C (maybe the demo when the very first came out).

[AlienXXX]

Hello All,

As usual, great discussion here.

I think as games go, SPWW2 and SPMBT are excellent at what they are intended for: they are battlefield "simulators" - I think given the level of complexity and realism, it is fair to use the word simulation.

But there are many things missing, which cannot be easily implemented (if at all) because of they are out of scope.
I now understand how unit prices are calculated from the unit's properties. I like Thesix's idea of having a "rariry" parameter to inflate the price of less common high tech units.

War is not just what happens in the battlefield.
How much it costs to maintain a unit, supply it with ammo and the tech expertise required to operate and maintain it are all part of the equation.
That is why the cost of an item is only half the story, which makes the WW2 / MBT costs so irrealistic.
For example, although arty tubes may be cheap in WW2 / MBT and of great effect, keeping a large arty contingent supplied with ammo would be a logistic challange.

To even things out, although on-board arty is unrealistic for all except the smallest calibers, I think it makes the game more interesting. Counter-battery fire means you need to keep your guns on the move plus you can always try to overrun the enemy and get the particular satisfaction of scrapping a battery of big guns with your tanks!

[klanx171]

I always split my games more along the idea of realism.

If the battle is supposed to be real it may be one sided, and war is full of one sided battles.

if its a game it should have some balance.

some people dont like snipers or ATGMs but war does have them, ok I get ticked off by them as well at times but should we have a nice flat open battlefield so the tanks can line up and fire like in the Napoleonic wars?

Half the challenge of the game is mastering it and its complexities and various strengths and weaknesses, Personally I love the Faluda gap scenario and the fact that the west Germans lob missile after missile at eh Russian hordes, how the hell else are you supposed to stop them?

its only when people are serious about winning that its gets serious, we all take losses and war is full of it.

my 2 cents