View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:39 pm




Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
What is "codex creep"?... 
Author Message
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:27 pm
Posts: 415
Location: Pennsylvania
My complaint is that the points system should be fixed. A "Confident Trained" unit with X frontal armor, Y Side armor, and Z top armor, with 10 AT and 3 FP should be a specific point cost. Add for more armor and Gun value, subtract for less. Multiply by 1.20 for fearless, and 1.20 for veteran, by .8 for conscript and .8 for reluctant +5 points per mg etc, etc. Anyone that knows the formula, knows the cost. I believe BF does this for a base, but then they fudge the numbers after play testing. So as far as the players are concerned the costs are “because we say so.”
The fix of course is to publish a master list of what things cost, which will get upgraded periodically when required. “Know your enemy” is an attempt at this. But I think there needs to be an understanding that when the points change, due to a new addition, then they are grandfathered.

_________________
Phil
http://philonworldwartwo.blogspot.com/
Image
Image
Image
Image
Japanese telephones work pretty much like ours, except the person on the other end can't understand you.


Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:05 pm
Profile WWW
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:52 am
Posts: 420
Major Rawne wrote:
dead1 wrote:
the new Bulge/Lorraine books are getting into insanity ville.


What do you mean by this? I thought BG&B and DC were both very good books.


Huge amounts of Codex creep with Yankees though I do like the content in them.

_________________
World's worst Flames of War player.
Current Win Ratio:Getting close to 0%.
Current Loss Ratio: soon will be 100% give or take a few more games

Currently 51% BF Compliant


Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:17 am
Profile
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 4:18 am
Posts: 422
ambler wrote:
Mark wrote:
Exactly. 1500 points in LW should be 1500 points in LW. Recently it seems 1500 points in LW means the new books get to buy 105% - 110% of earlier forces with 2-5 new special rules without costs. That's CC in my mind.

Fair comment, Mark. I think it is the addition of special rules that is giving the buff more though than points. TDs seem to be a case in point. If BF
can't bring these later lists into balance then LW needs to to divide into two eras for competitive gameplay.


Of note remember that TDs are a National rule similar to Stormtrooper or Mission Tactics and not a special rule . Germans have generally fewer National rules but they effect most if not all of their army. In contrast the Americans National rules only usually work on very specific units and not their entire army similar to ToT, TDs, and truscott trott

After BF can go back and readdress points values on all the older books I think you will see balance restored. I would like to note that not all points have gotten cheaper. HMGs for example have improved dramatically and had their points increased in the new V3 books. I personally look forward to getting the cheaper AT 12 76mm Shermans, AT 12 TDs, and assault guns. I am not a fan of all the new high AT expensive American tanks but that's personal taste. I predict that a cobra 2nd AD list will be extremely potent in it's next revision.


Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:20 am
Profile
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:23 pm
Posts: 941
The problem with the TDs is that in Turning Tide and the Forces Book it costs IIRC 320 points for 4 TDs with AT12 while in BGG for 310 points you get them with AT13.......


Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:06 am
Profile
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 4:18 am
Posts: 422
Yes but that is because in V2 you had 7 teams in your TD platoon, infantry stands, and transports which causes them to cost more. In V3 you only have 4 teams in the platoon and the recon section is only tank teams. Once they AT12 version of the TD get repointed in upcoming releases a TD platoon with AT 12 will most likely cost 260-270 points.


Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:22 pm
Profile
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 470
I feel like a lot of the creep is to get the same number of models on the table, but with the newer, better equipment. After all BF wants to make money selling models and they can't do that as easily making lists that only use a few models on the table. Things are reasonably balanced within a campaign set, but beyond that there are issues. The trouble seems that they want to keep model count static and change points rather than keep points static and change model count. This is true between periods as well, and the other choice would be different eras having very different tournament points.

_________________
Vist my blog- TheRulesLawyer


Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:28 pm
Profile
Technical Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 5:58 pm
Posts: 1176
Location: NoVa
Rules Lawyer, would you consider things reasonably balanced so far in Lorraine/Bulge? Certainly I feel like normandy and LW east front are relatively OK (normandy more so) but the Bulge stuff just seems to favor the Americans to me.

_________________
The Iron Curtain Will Rise
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image


Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:39 pm
Profile WWW
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 470
Throckmorton wrote:
Rules Lawyer, would you consider things reasonably balanced so far in Lorraine/Bulge? Certainly I feel like normandy and LW east front are relatively OK (normandy more so) but the Bulge stuff just seems to favor the Americans to me.


I don't know that I can offer a substantial opinion on the whole series just yet. The Americans got some new tricks and I think that other players are still adjusting to how they have to deal with it. Especially if they're using lower quality german troops that they may not have a firm handle on running just yet. I know some of the pairings can tend to favor Americans, TDC vs panther company for example, but some types of forces are always strong vs others. I'm sure there are plenty of people one here that have played a whole lot more with the new forces than I and can more competently answer this.

_________________
Vist my blog- TheRulesLawyer


Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:21 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 1962
Location: Madison, WI
My opinion only:

I have yet to see a German list in BG&G or DC that rivals:

US Rifles (2 ID)
US Armored Rifles
US TD Company

I think the jury will be out for a while on the other lists like Cav Recon, Engineers, etc.

Another point of view is that I don't hear anyone that is a German player jump up and down for glee or joy at their lists in these two books.

_________________
Follow me at:
http://fowarmymen.blogspot.com
Hating Lehr well before Meuse...


Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:45 pm
Profile WWW
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:06 pm
Posts: 1019
Location: Raleigh, NC
The numbers show the US was tragically underrepresented at the top of the tournament ladder, when it should be relatively even if things are "balanced".

Surely they needed an upgrade of some type - to me, that's not codex creep, that's re-balancing the game. And this is what we want them to do if things don't pan out as they expected from playtesting.

Through a combination of 'unintended synergies', the new US lists are probably a little too good, though probably not quite good enough to get hit with that nerf bat.

Now they'll be at the top of every event :D

_________________
Your friendly neighborhood Mathemagician.


Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:00 am
Profile
Technical Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:42 pm
Posts: 1250
Location: San Antonio, TX
The_Riha wrote:
The numbers show the US was tragically underrepresented at the top of the tournament ladder, when it should be relatively even if things are "balanced".

Surely they needed an upgrade of some type - to me, that's not codex creep, that's re-balancing the game. And this is what we want them to do if things don't pan out as they expected from playtesting.

Through a combination of 'unintended synergies', the new US lists are probably a little too good, though probably not quite good enough to get hit with that nerf bat.

Now they'll be at the top of every event :D


Ah!!! I always wondered why I finished in the middle I was running US lists!!!! I knew I was as good as Bill!!! :)


Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:27 am
Profile
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:23 pm
Posts: 941
Broxus wrote:
Yes but that is because in V2 you had 7 teams in your TD platoon, infantry stands, and transports which causes them to cost more. In V3 you only have 4 teams in the platoon and the recon section is only tank teams. Once they AT12 version of the TD get repointed in upcoming releases a TD platoon with AT 12 will most likely cost 260-270 points.

I would buy that if the points in the Forces Book were not the same as the points in TT.

You can work out the points for 4 CT M10s simply by looking at the cost of British M10s which cost 240. The US TD doctrine is clearly an upgrade, I think it is probably worth 80 points.

BG&G makes a massive change to the effectiveness of the TDs compared to the Forces Book and it also reduces the cost.

Now you could simply argue that it is the Forces Book that is the garbage here but as it was published as part of the V3 rules you would have hoped that it would be V3 compatible :twisted:


Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:03 am
Profile
First Sergeant

Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:23 pm
Posts: 2030
Images: 0
Location: Stockport, UK
I have to agree with the sentiments of Hammy and The_Riha.
For my own part regardless of what was intended I can go into a "Late Late War" book like Devil's Charge and get more bang for my bucks. Why would I want to continue using Dogs and Devils for a US CV Infantry list (3rd ID) when I can pack in more bazookas (4 per rfile platoon) and a slightly cheaper 81mm mortar platoon? (mortars are 15 points cheaper for 6 than Dogs and Devils).

If there's no point running the earlier list then the the earlier book is obsolete in terms of competitiveness. This is something I thought BF had said would not happen to their battle books.

Tournaments should make up for this shortfall by restricting the lists that can be used or by giving a boost to out of date lits (ooh, controversial - should get some feedback).

_________________
Blog: http://not2oldtowargame.wordpress.com/


Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:07 pm
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:16 pm
Posts: 374
Location: Bloomington, IL
Personally I think the new US lists are abit over the top compared to what everyone else has access to.

Player skill is a very determining factor in tournament results as has been shown many times. However, Im not in the firm opinion that US lists prior to BGG/DC were all that underpowered. The main weakness of US lists prior to those books was a lack of an AT option above 12. Really thats all they needed to be "competitive"

BF really should have evaluated how the upgraded Tank Destroyers rules alone influenced results before giving the Americans an across the board power increase. The new American rules in V3 were already a huge improvement to the Army before also double down on that with much better lists and abilities. Basically the US got the best National rule upgrades between the versions already.

Just like most German lists try to bring at least 1 AT option above PAK 40s. Because you need something to deal with heavy Armor and AT12 doesnt quite cut it. Now americans also had stabilizers which allowed them to flank enemies more easily esp when combined with Sherman smoke rounds.

The German lists in both books are frankly horrible. Yes you can field a horde of tanks that flee easily and are easily destroyed by heavy AT which every tournament list has access to.

thats my 2 cents


Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:03 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 1962
Location: Madison, WI
chaos45 wrote:
BF really should have evaluated how the upgraded Tank Destroyers rules alone influenced results before giving the Americans an across the board power increase. The new American rules in V3 were already a huge improvement to the Army before also double down on that with much better lists and abilities. Basically the US got the best National rule upgrades between the versions already.

This is a very good observation and comment.

_________________
Follow me at:
http://fowarmymen.blogspot.com
Hating Lehr well before Meuse...


Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:04 pm
Profile WWW
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:23 pm
Posts: 941
webgriffin wrote:
chaos45 wrote:
BF really should have evaluated how the upgraded Tank Destroyers rules alone influenced results before giving the Americans an across the board power increase. The new American rules in V3 were already a huge improvement to the Army before also double down on that with much better lists and abilities. Basically the US got the best National rule upgrades between the versions already.

This is a very good observation and comment.


Having used AT12 TDs in V3 I think they work about OK at the points value from the Forces Book. You lose the post deployment utility of the security section, you lose dissengage and you gain the zombie status of the security team and improved ambush.

Overall when I used them at AT 12 they were not overpowered IMO


Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:10 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 1962
Location: Madison, WI
Hammy -

Try running TFA is a game - just a fun game if you will. You might see that even without the TDC lists, etc. that a Turning Tide list in V3 can be pretty darn strong.

My view is that a single platoon is strong. Two platoons of TDs is very, very strong...

_________________
Follow me at:
http://fowarmymen.blogspot.com
Hating Lehr well before Meuse...


Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:16 pm
Profile WWW
Minister of Memes ಠ_ಠ
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:27 am
Posts: 1502
Location: Peoria, IL
I feel the U.S. might have the advantage of metagame at the moment, but not too terribly off-putting compared to the options Germans have.

I think the Brits will see a similar update to the Market Garden stuff this December and we'll see a swing back to more British lists from the new books. I mean lets face it, how often to you ever see/fight Brits anymore in Late War?

Someone linked a video of "perfect imbalance" this week or last which pretty much sums up how I feel Flames of War is heading. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it definitely keeps the game dynamic and keeping everyone supplied with new models. I think you can expect the same out of Midwar too when they get updated "event" by "event."


Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:02 pm
Profile
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:23 pm
Posts: 941
JMHahn wrote:
I feel the U.S. might have the advantage of metagame at the moment, but not too terribly off-putting compared to the options Germans have.

I think the Brits will see a similar update to the Market Garden stuff this December and we'll see a swing back to more British lists from the new books. I mean lets face it, how often to you ever see/fight Brits anymore in Late War?

Someone linked a video of "perfect imbalance" this week or last which pretty much sums up how I feel Flames of War is heading. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it definitely keeps the game dynamic and keeping everyone supplied with new models. I think you can expect the same out of Midwar too when they get updated "event" by "event."


Which is pretty much the definition of codex creep.....

If the latest books always make something that was not so good better and possibly best then voila. You have codex creep.


Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:09 pm
Profile
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:23 pm
Posts: 941
webgriffin wrote:
Hammy -

Try running TFA is a game - just a fun game if you will. You might see that even without the TDC lists, etc. that a Turning Tide list in V3 can be pretty darn strong.

My view is that a single platoon is strong. Two platoons of TDs is very, very strong...


I will but to be honest I think that the BG&G veteran AR are better than TFA. I was going to use TFA before the V3 changes and actually have all the models to do it. I may use it anyway just to see if it is as broken as people think. Personally I think it is a good list but the change to TDs while it has improved its offensive capability it has made the army even more fragile than it was before.


Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:11 pm
Profile
Minister of Memes ಠ_ಠ
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:27 am
Posts: 1502
Location: Peoria, IL
hammy wrote:
JMHahn wrote:
I feel the U.S. might have the advantage of metagame at the moment, but not too terribly off-putting compared to the options Germans have.

I think the Brits will see a similar update to the Market Garden stuff this December and we'll see a swing back to more British lists from the new books. I mean lets face it, how often to you ever see/fight Brits anymore in Late War?

Someone linked a video of "perfect imbalance" this week or last which pretty much sums up how I feel Flames of War is heading. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it definitely keeps the game dynamic and keeping everyone supplied with new models. I think you can expect the same out of Midwar too when they get updated "event" by "event."


Which is pretty much the definition of codex creep.....

If the latest books always make something that was not so good better and possibly best then voila. You have codex creep.


Yeah, my statement was sort of contradictory. I guess I don't see it so much as codex creep as I simply see it as an evolving metagame. I guess I played the worst of the "codex creep" in games like 40K where the best player in the world hasn't done well at all versus a moderately capable player with a newer army. I've faced a few of the lists from BG&G and Devil's Charge and won each one with my Germans from Grey Wolf. It was close, but fun. It actually feels a bit more sporting now than it ever has before. If I expect Jumbos and Easy 8's I'm not leaving without Panthers or even a King Tiger to keep them busy. All the new stuff will be the new hotness until people begin bringing things to easily counter them-- at which point the metagame evovles yet again.

And even this only applies to the tournament or competitive scene. Most of what I play locally is more of a scenario where this sort of thing doesn't even matter all that much.

At the end of the day I'm definitely not arguing with the folks that find this to be codex creep, I just choose to respectfully disagree as I feel I have suffered "real" codex creep in other systems.


Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:15 pm
Profile
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:26 pm
Posts: 577
The interesting bit is that the new kit that the US forces get is not what is making the new lists good. Jumbos and Easy 8's have no place in a really good LW US tournament list as they are overpriced. In many instances, upgrading to the M4A3 Late is also unnecessary. Jackson are nice, but also just icing. What makes the new lists good is the V3 rules changes and access to multiple TD platoons. AT13 is nice, but TFA at 1500 points and AT12 really works just fine. The fact that the US has better equipment is a red herring. Rules changes and additions along with a better TO&E are what make them better than they were in the past.

Bill


Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:50 pm
Profile
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:01 pm
Posts: 470
hammy wrote:
Which is pretty much the definition of codex creep.....

If the latest books always make something that was not so good better and possibly best then voila. You have codex creep.


I think its inevitable with the allies. Newer books will have better toys while the Germans are starting to backslide.

_________________
Vist my blog- TheRulesLawyer


Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:56 pm
Profile
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:23 pm
Posts: 941
TheRulesLawyer wrote:
hammy wrote:
Which is pretty much the definition of codex creep.....

If the latest books always make something that was not so good better and possibly best then voila. You have codex creep.


I think its inevitable with the allies. Newer books will have better toys while the Germans are starting to backslide.


I have absolutely zero issues with new toys being better BUT the points should reflect the in game effectiveness.

If for example Jagdtigers turn up with FA 20, SA 10, TA 4, AT 23, FP 0+ and wide tracks then fair enough. As long as they are pointed accordingly it doesn't matter. The fundamental problem is that even between the Forces Book and BGG there were significant point reductions in a lot of troops.


Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:43 pm
Profile
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:26 am
Posts: 609
Nah they need to sell Jagdtigers they will be CT and cheaper than an Easy-Eight ot a PIV!


Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:14 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

15,667,457 Views Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y