QB Armor pts CM1.1

[Bigdog]

I know this must have come up but why is Axis handicapped 1/3pts in a QB such I just did a set up on QB 2000pts Meeting Engagement Combined Arms Axis=400pts, Allies=600pts that's like a a full 1/3 handy cap? Please don't start a flame war on this post, just asking. It just seems to to be a bit much huh? Thanks

Big Dog

[This message has been edited by Bigdog (edited 01-15-2001).]

[Guy w/gun]

Nevermind...it was a meeting engagement

[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 01-15-2001).]

[Basebal351]

Whew, for a minute there I thought that it might be because the Axis powers were being "slighted". I thought that it was blatant "Allied-bias" by BTS, in an attempt to screw-over the German player. Why would anyone play the German player if they've got 1/3 less armor points than the Allies?!? It just doesn't make for balanced play!!

But, all kidding aside, I would assume that the Allies, historically, DID have more "armor" points in a sense. They had a ton more man and materiel than the Germans did. And, even in an engagement the size represented in Combat Mission, the Allies would probably have a greater number of tanks in proportion to men than the Germans. BTS gave us the option to simulate these greater numbers of Allied tanks by allowing the Allied player to use more of his/her (go Kitty!!) points to buy tanks. That's all in my honest opinion, though.

I REALLY wish people complaining about Allied "inferiority" in Combat Mission would look at both sides of the issue before complaining.

Thanks,

Jim

------------------

"...you're just jealous that the UK didn't get to join the war before the Americans took Berlin. But, I WILL give credit to where credit is due. If it wasn't for America's almighty industry, we might not have been able to win the war single-handedly. You UK-landers would have been the first people we would have called, though, if we needed some help... or some more tea. We promise."

[Guest JAZZA]

I was kind of disapointed when I found out the points had been changed.I thought it was fine the way it was,and I tend to play allies more.It probably got changed due to people moaning about not being able to win as allies.

[Panther131]

I have tooted my horn about this before. But know one seemed to care. I think its way unfair to the germans. With the allies having effective tungsten use (added with the new batch of patches), the allies have a big advantage when you give them a three to one advantage in armor points. I think this should be fixed. Just My Opinion.

Please BTS change it back. A 3 to 1 ratio is way to big.

[Wayne]

I have'nt investigated this in the QBs but if it will move some of the "I only play as Axis" crowd out of their safe encloser and experience the game in it's fullness, I'm all for it. I believe this more reflects the historical reality of the War in Europe.

------------------

Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight.

[Guy w/gun]

Just can't make everyone happy !

Some people complain that the axis tanks cost to little for what they are, some complain that a 3 to 1 ally armor bonus is unfair....JEEZ!!!!!

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A 3 to 1 ratio is way to big.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, a 3 to 1 ratio is way too big.

Which is why it isn't.

------------------

Muddying the waters as usual.

[KiwiJoe]

It's not a 3:1 ratio. It's 3:2 or 33.6%, 1/3 more for the allies. IE. in a 1500 point meeting allies get 450 points to spend on tanks, germans get 300. Now that thats cleared up... I play Allies 80% of the time. I find them by FAR the better side to play all round and havent lost a single game EVER playing them. This is going to make the germans even less of a challenge to play agaisnt. They will only be able to field 1 panther in a 1500 meeting. I can't understand why people think the germans are better. Most of their tanks have some major bad points (slow turrets, weak side armour, slow movement etc) and are expensive. Their artillery is a joke and their 1 mortor (81mm) is low in ammo and power. They have some good infantry but you just can't beat 12 men squads (unless you can afford a strum company that is). 12 men squads effectively equate to 20% more armour over the german 10 men squads.

[Basebal351]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun:

Just can't make everyone happy !

Some people complain that the axis tanks cost to little for what they are, some complain that a 3 to 1 ally armor bonus is unfair....JEEZ!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. That's what I was saying. No matter what, you're going to have the hardcore Allied fanatics, (and yes some of you are!!) and the hardcore German fanatics (those who are picked on, and made fun of by the Allied fanatics). Both sides think their side is getting shafted, and deserve better means with which to do away with the other side.

I say we eliminate complaining, and the changing of Allied or German capabilities just because a few people complain about it being unbalanced, or unfair. I think the game was fine before all of the latest changes, definitely fair to both sides so long as they fought historically.

But, with some of the changes that have been made, mostly for the Allies for whatever reasons, there has been an increase in ahistorical play and results. An dinky M8 (heard it on another thread) *cringe* knocking out multiple KING TIGERS?!? Well, whatever. Allied players wanted increased tungsten use and Allied tank capabilities, so BTS gave them increased tungsten use and Allied tank capabilities. How historical was it for an M8 to knock out a King Tiger??? I'll leave that up to you all to decide.

And trust me, if that was my M8 that knocked out the King Tiger, I think I would be embarrassed knowing that I got away with something in the game that by all means I wouldn't have in real-life. I think I would have surrendered the game, even.

Many Allied-centric players, after recieving an ABUNDANT amount of tungsten and the increase in its' use, still want German tank's guns to be less effective, or their armor to be easier to penetrate. It appears that they want to have their cake and eat it too.

German-centric players aren't at fault either. They want less tungsten use, and more effective guns.

As we can all see, there is no way to please everybody. And I think a very happy medium was reached in the first release. Most things after that, besides historically-proven tweaks, only detracted from the original balance and historical data Steve and Charles originally came up with. I can even live with the penetration figures and the tungsten use in v 1.05 and the Beta, but no more please.

And no more complaining from either side!

Thanks,

Jim

[Basebal351]

Good post, KiwiJoe. It's nice to see another primarily Allied player like myself admit that all of these benefits the Allies are recieving probably aren't in the best interests of Combat Mission or Allied players. The Germans aren't any more powerful, many Allied players just use improper, non-historical tactics against the German tanks by trying to go toe-to-toe with them. And THAT'S why so many Allied players CLAMORED for the tungsten. They wanted their Shermans to take out Tigers frontally at 300m!! Jeez...

Thanks,

Jim

------------------

"...you're just jealous that the UK didn't get to join the war before the Americans took Berlin. But, I WILL give credit to where credit is due. If it wasn't for America's almighty industry, we might not have been able to win the war single-handedly. You UK-landers would have been the first people we would have called, though, if we needed some help... or some more tea. We promise."

[Panther131]

Absolutley agreed Kiwijoe.

I have always felt this to some degree with the axis. Especially after the latest patches.

German armor is good; but its not invincible. I don't quite get how people rag on german players as "hiding" behind the axis. IMO, the axis are definitly outweighed by the allies. Now with with the armor differential, it just makes it even tougher for the germans.

BTW, this is supposed to be for QB's not historical accuracy. I mean historical accuracy is part of it, but for QB, my impression is that they are for balanced play, while scenarios are where all the heavy historical aspects come in to it.

After all, You can purchase a Sherman Jumbo for 260(?) points, and there were only 200-400 or so made.

[Basebal351]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131:

BTW, this is supposed to be for QB's not historical accuracy. I mean historical accuracy is part of it, but for QB, my impression is that they are for balanced play, while scenarios are where all the heavy historical aspects come in to it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, and if more Allied players played historically, there wouldn't be as many complaints, or changes made. Run and flanking tactics for the Shermans...

Thanks,

Jim

[Simon Fox]

Dear Basebal351,

You seem very confused.

As far as I can see almost all changes which have been made are on the basis of "historically-proven tweaks".

Leaving aside the issue of QB points distribution what makes you think "an ABUNDANT amount of tungsten" was given to allied tanks?

Get a grip on yourself man!

Wipe that foam of your chops!

"And THAT'S why so many Allied players CLAMORED for the tungsten." That's your interpretation of their rationale for clamouring? Oh I always thought they were clamouring for their tanks to use more readily the exceedingly small number of tungsten rounds they already had, silly me!

[Panther131]

Here is the thing Simon: I think, or I am under the impression that, before all the beta patches, the armor distribution was even or thereabouts, ( I do know BTW, becouse I originally brought this topic up once before) making combined arms fun to play for both sides.. Now with added use and effectiveness of tungsten, plus added points for allies (or decrease for axis) the allies have a much bigger advantage.

Maybe like you suggested, we could get BTS to even the armored points in combined arms play.

A word of note: from what I can recall about this topic in its first iteration was that the overall and ending response was that the extra allied armor points makes up for the german mechs, becouse german mechs have 7.5 cm guns and such. Hmmm...speaking of the reality of the war...if they have them (the 7.5 cm guns) isnt that how it should be?

In other words...why should we even try and compensate for the allied in this respect especially by toneing down the german armor. This makes no sense. If its there, it is there.

This is the equivelent of saying: gee no tungsten for the germans but tungsten for allied? Hmmmm...lets even that out...lets give the axis more armor points, or whatever you want to give them, in order to compensate the "unfairness" that the allied have with tungsten. This is ridiculous IMO.

If thats how the units were, then thats how the units were...lets not start compensating points becouse such and such doent have a 7.5cm gun on it. This is just ahistorical.

[Tanaka]

From past posts I become under the impression that BTS has opted to leave the historical options of the game open... Players looking for a good unhistorical fair fight play ME QB, players looking for historical battles play attack scenarios.

This new politic of more 33% allied armor is strange, is a step in the enforce historical conditions direction...

Now to KiwiJoe...

"...I play Allies...haven't lost a single game EVER playing them..."

Never crossed your mind that you could have played with the "right" players

"...their 1 mortar (81mm) is low in ammo and power..."

I faille to understand this one, the Heer 81mm mortar has less ammo (less 25%) but has more blast :0

"...They have some good infantry but you just can't beat 12 men squads (unless you can afford a strum company that is). 12 men squads effectively equate to 20% more armour over the German 10 men squads"

For you to have this kind of conclusion about German infantry, I can guess that your battles were fought in a pool table

I'm available for a ME QB if you wish...

[JoePrivate]

What was the historical availabilty of tungsten for the Allies in the fall of '44? Specifically for the US 76 and the British 17lb gun. IIRC CM allows tungsten starting Sep44.

[Basebal351]

Dear Simon Fox,

Perhaps I know you, but then again, perhaps I do not. I AM very confused on that point.

But, what I am not confused about is my previous assertations regarding the use ahistorical use of tungsten. And how does this ahistorical use come about? From an overabundance one is to assume. I would REALLY like to know the actual numbers of tungsten rounds given out to tankers and used out on the field. From experience, I can tell you that some of the Allied tanks have QUITE A FEW rounds of the precious metal. There was some debate going on earlier, when BTS was going to increase the use of Tungsten, whether the Allied tanks should have been given less rounds of the stuff. Many believed that they should so long as they would use the rounds they had more often and more effectively. What is interesting to note, however, is that I've never been made aware as to any changes regarding the number of tungsten rounds available to Allied tanks.

And nobody can tell me that the number of rounds these tanks have are beyond a reasonable doubt, the correct amount. I assume the number of rounds chosen for different tanks was another one of the times, albiet few times, where BTS hazarded a guess and hoped it worked out for gameplay.

What I do know, that in all of the anecdotal stories I've seen, read, and heard from Allied tankers, they ALWAYS talk about outmanuevering the German heavies, laying down smoke for cover, or even tactifully retreating to hit the German tank from another angle at another time. Never ONCE have I heard an Allied gunner say that he "slammed home a tungsten round, and knocked out that sonofabith Tiger from 300m, right through the turret." It just wasn't as common as it is in CM, as are a LOT of tactics from the Allied and German players.

And THAT'S why I say we end to bickering, and complaining, and changing of values and go back to the balanced days of old. They were so good then, before the tungsten and differing armor points in QB's.

Which brings me to another point. In a QB where the Allies have more Armor points than the Germans, it's one thing for them to pick up 4 M3's, or M4's. That's a pretty balanced Quick Battle. It's quite another for them to pick up 3 M10 TD's, with 3-5 rounds of Tungsten apiece. The German player, with one Panther and a Stug III, would get torn apart. That's not balanced. At least with the 4 M3's, the Allied player would have to rely on good, historically sound tactics to win. Which is the way it REALLY was.

And like someone else pointed out, let's not make concessions for one side just because the other side has an advantage in one area (the German tanks have bigger guns, so let's give lots of other advantages to American tanks).

I liked my CM just fine, thank you. Please unfix BTS, or do somefink.

[von Lucke]

A 2000 pt QB, Meeting Engagement under 1.1 breaks down thus:

Axis / Allies (who's ahead)

Infantry: 1240 / 1120 (Axis by 120)

Support: 496 / 504 (Allies by 8)

Vehicles: 500 / 400 (Axis by 100)

Armor: 400 / 600 (Allies by 200)

Artillery: 300 / 375 (Allies by 75)

Seems like it breaks down with the Axis ahead in Infantry and Vehicles, while the Allies have the edge in Armor and Artillery.

I don't recall BTS saying that QB ME's were meant to be equal(?) Perhaps a more historically plausible ME is what they have in mind, where the Allies should have the edge in numbers of Tanks and Guns, and the Axis should be mostly on foot with a few motorized assets as back-up. One Panther should = 4 Shermans. The people who seem to be complaining the most also seem to be the ones who advocate "equal" points in QB's, which inevitably leads to Axis superiority in Armor...

Believe it or not, I prefer the Germans. Seems like I never get to play them tho, because just about every PBEM I get into, the other guy insists on being Axis, ME, early '44; which usually equates to Panthers and Tigers against M10's with brittle AP rounds that bounce off like BB's! But what about all that Tungsten, you say? Unless you choose a Vet or above, you're likely to have 0-2. All BTS has done there is make Allied tankers more likely to use what they had when they need it --- but one Golden BB isn't going to save a TD with .5 in of armor from a 75L70 or 88.

KiwiJoe: Try the 120mm Mortars --- cheap and powerful.

Basebal351: How many M8's get knocked out by KT's? That's what I thought... First you complain because you want to fight with ahistorical force pools, then you complain that such set-ups lead to ahistorical results. Can't have it both ways.

[Simon Fox]

Firstly Basebal it is your opinion that the current use of tungsten is ahistorical. The successful arguments raised in that discussion are readily accessible by searching and were principally "historical" and "logical" and had very little to do with "evening the balance" up. Therefore I consider your use of it as an example in this thread is entirely spurious. You say you want to settle things down but it seems you are the one with a bee in yer bonnet. Characterising this as some sort of 'pro-Allies' vs 'pro-German' is entirely inappropriate since many people play both equally and yet may also be advocates for more accurate modelling or historical tweaks which you seem to be characterising as an effort to ahistorically modify the game. Thankfully BTS are receptive to properly constructed, reasoned and supported arguments but are not prone to altering the game on whims or flights of fancy.

As for the actual topic of this thread I have no problems with Panther131s or others concerns regarding quick battle armour armour point allocations. But before I get all worked up about a putative ahistorical balancing the allies conspiracy I would like to see what BTS say on the subject. I would also be concerned about drawing conclusions from a single example. Is there any randomness in the QB points distribution for combined arms or are the proportions fixed and inviolable?

------------------

Muddying the waters as usual.

[This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 01-16-2001).]

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

Ok There are QBs people no historical commander got to buy his weapons before a battle. If all of his tanks were shot up they were shot up. If the enemy attacked those tanks' engines did get fixed automaticly. If you want historical, do the research and make the map. You can give one allied TD 2 Tungesten rds and thats it for all. CMBO tries to give Axis & Allies a fighting chance AND, stress the word "AND" make them diffrent from each other so its not a game of chess, its a WWII game. I'm going to take on the role of moderator right now and shut this thread down. BTS has given us the tools to make what each of us think is the perfect wargame. Use your heads, if these new point values work pretty good for a fight against the AI and we all know how much more vicious humans can be in ambushes. Give the attack 10% less on the attack. Finally just make an agreement ahead of time to give the germans an Armored setup but not buy more than whatever the Allies can buy with a combined arms setup. If whoever does not like what you think are fair turns find someone else to play with.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

It "makes sense" because historically, there were 4 allied AFVs for every 1 German one. And making that only 3:2 is already balancing to favor the Germans and make for a more balanced game. And the point limits will tend to push the German player to explore the rest of the possible OOBs, which are much more like the real battles, instead of (yawn) all the Panthers money can buy.

Hetzers are less than 100 points with normal crews. They penetrate any common Allied vehicle from the front at range. Their front armor is sloped enough that they can bounce most Allied shells at medium range, especially hull down. They are small targets to boot. And the Germans were turning out them, and their cousins the StuGs and the Jadgpanzer IVs, like gangbusters over the last year of the war, compared to the number of Panthers they were making.

Someone said the German artillery is a joke. The mortars are not a joke, either the 81mm or the 120mm. And who uses the 150mm rockets? Sure they are inaccurate, which means you have to use them differently than you use point-blasted arty. But they are also dirt cheap, because the launchers were dirt cheap to make, being not much more than a set of hollow tubes. Those are the indirect fire support means the Germans could actually afford.

And historically, the Germans used lots of towed guns and ad hoc armed HT versions of the same weapons. Granted the towed ones are less useful in meeting engagements than on the defense, but there are enourmous bargains there. Many know about the usefulness of the 20mm FLAK, yet I constantly here the refrain of outrage against the uber M-8 on this board. Where are your rapid fire pop-guns to shred them, if they bother you so much? Said pop guns are dirt cheap after all.

And the German infantry, as it is available to the QB buyer as opposed to in scenarios, is incredible in the literal sense of the word. No quality problems with bottom of the barrel manpower here. Instead, all the automatic weapons you want, cheap.

In the real war, German machine pistols and Panzerfausts, German mortars used in clever ways, all sorts of light cannons, dug in or on halftracks, and German assualt guns firing from ambush, were the tactical problems the allies actually faced. Using all of those weapons well and coordinating their use, or overcoming them, is at least half the point.

Instead we get (yawn) endless dissertations on the slope of a Panther's front armor and (yawn) the penetrating powers of the US 76.2mm AP (yawn) against that exact item (zzz)...

With occasional anecdotal ravings against the uber M-8 (hmm? Oh, yeah. Moving shooters should not hit much, yeah. Heard it the fifth time, thanks. Right, 37mm anti-tank guns are small. I got that. The Germans conquered Europe in Pz IIIs with 37mm and short 50mm guns, did you know that? Sure, who cares, that was before the Amis...)

[KiwiJoe]

I meant onboard mortors... of which the axis only have 1... the 81mm.

Tanaka... I've played plently of very good players, plus a few not so good

The point I was trying to make about german infantry was that they can't take many hits before they become ineffective as compared to americans. The germans rely on a few weapons per squad for their firepower... mg42 for ranged power, and mp40,44 for close in power. Once they lose 1 of these weapons they lose a lot of their fighting ability. Compare this to the yabnky squads with 9 M1s. The M1 is a great all-round weapon and the yanky squads can lose quite a few of them and still remain effective.

[Guest JAZZA]

The subject of the thread was about change in armour points,not about tungsten use or blah blah etc.IMO there was nothing wrong with the points allocation.These changes happen because people keep moaning about losing as allies,"BTS I can't put my sherman in full view of a tiger and kill it frontally" whinge,whinge etc..There's nothing wrong with the allies,it's about knowing what unit's are effective and what aren't for the tactic's you use and the type of map you're playing on.

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

Germans can get Security squads which have great range, used to over watch regular rifle squads works great, plus germans have so many options in most fights, they can mix it up. Germans and Allies don't need tanks in most fights (I like to play heavy coverage, but thats cuz I got bored with tanks after I tested them all out)

Good points again Jason.

Kiwijoe-justed visited you fine country in December. Good points also. I don't use mortars much but your damn right. U can get a range of diff quality mortars with the allies. 2in, 3in, and a 81mm. That 3incher is very nice, hmmm myabe I'll have to play with the British some more.