von Lucke Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Americans produced something like 10,000 tungsten core AP rounds (HVAP) a month from about July '44 to the end of the war. Of these, probably only 2-3 rnds would make their way into the hands of yr average Sherman gunner, as preference was given to Tank Destroyer units. TD's would average around 5 HVAP rnds per. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 BTS did comment on this a while back. Going from memory they said the change was done to force more historically accurate OOB. As others have pointed out, the Germans had far fewer tanks and were much more likely to use light vehicles in a front line role than the allies, hence more vehicle points for Germans but fewer armor. Those who say that QBs are not supposed to be historically accurate are not quite correct. Why do you think BTS made it cheaper to purchase units as part of a larger organization (company, battalion) in QBs? They must be trying to encourage OOBs that bear resemblance to history. Does this put the German player at a big disadvantage? I honestly don't know. I think it needs to be played some more. Some German players bitch about the M8, but they have some vehicles (Puma and 234/3) that are similar in capability. Maybe soon we will be hearing allied players yelling "A Puma just KOed my Super Pershing, BTS fix or do somefink!!" [This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 01-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 In the gamy sense armour points doesn’t matter because good gamy German players buy a human wave of high FP squads and swamp you. The only thing that would stand out a bit is if BTS based the difference in combined arms points distribution on some kind of historical availability, as it would fly in the face of their stated policy regarding the pricing of the individual units. Since individual units are priced solely by their offensive and defensive capability, it would seem logical if the points distribution is based on a similar formula. M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 01-16-2001).] [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 01-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 Vanir, I also recall BTS posting about a week or two ago that the reduction in German armor points was offset by the greater abundance of combat-worthy "vehicles" (i.e., HT's, etc.) available to the Axis player. Then again, a tin can with a 75 is only worth so much on the battlefield ------------------ Don't talk to me about atrocities in war; all war is an atrocity. --Lord Kitchener Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePrivate Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Americans produced something like 10,000 tungsten core AP rounds (HVAP) a month from about July '44 to the end of the war. Of these, probably only 2-3 rnds would make their way into the hands of yr average Sherman gunner, as preference was given to Tank Destroyer units. TD's would average around 5 HVAP rnds per.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks von Lucke, that seems to reflect what I've seen in the games I have played. I also setup a few QB in Sep44 to satisfy my curiosity, the US TDs would range from 0 to 8 rounds of tungsten with an average of about 3 per vehicle, the British Firefly averaged about 4 rounds per. I like the new points allocation for both sides, the US is less restricted in their selection which makes for more interesting play overall I feel. The increased use of tungsten has had a significant effect on play, I wouldn't say it is a problem however as CM is trying to reflect the historical. When playing as the Germans it is just another factor you have to take into consideration when purchasing and maneuvering your force, for me that equates to more fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigdog Posted January 16, 2001 Author Share Posted January 16, 2001 Well I knew this would open up a discussion. I see a lot of good points brought up. But I think since QBs are used primarily for PBEM or TCP games, it should be a bench mark of = forces. Now I know about all the arguments about the German armor advantage. But as I said, a full 1/3 Allied point bump is to much, and it make's for a non competitive battle. With the range's that CM armor engages the gun an armor are nor as important (baring Tigers, Jagdpanther, Jumbos & M26). You tell me if this sounds right? 2000pts QB Combined Arms Meeting Engagement Axis 2 PNZR IVJ = 234pts 2 Hetzers = 166pts Total 400pts Allies 2 M4 75 = 234pts 1M4A1 76 = 156pts 2 M10 = 206pts Total 596pts Or Axis 2 Panther VG Late = 398pts Allies 2 M4A3 76 E8 = 346pts 2 M18 (1vet) = 246pts Total 592pts Come on now? It will be a long day for the German commander under these conditions. Big Dog [This message has been edited by Bigdog (edited 01-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 Another thing to have in mind is the German Infantry is a powerful AT Asset The PzFaust they have make them very risky for tanks in ranges from 30 to 100 mts. The Allied don't have a nything close to that, except zooks, but they are almost equal in support points, and Germans have more Infantry points. Ariel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt.Tom Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 I am a little confused now, I thought that BTS decided what the cost of a unit would be based on it's effectiveness and had nothing to do with historical anything. But now QB points are based on historical factors, I would feel better if it was done one way throughout the whole game. I think that is what is bothering a lot of people. Pvt.Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danyzn Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt.Tom: I am a little confused now, I thought that BTS decided what the cost of a unit would be based on it's effectiveness and had nothing to do with historical anything. But now QB points are based on historical factors, I would feel better if it was done one way throughout the whole game. I think that is what is bothering a lot of people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BTS said that the COST of a unit is based on its effectiveness, but what we are talking about here is not the cost of units, but how many points are allocated to armour as opposed to other categories. These are two entirely separate things. If you change the cost of a unit, you will change the number of that unit that can be purchased, without affecting the rest of the force; that would affect game balance. If you change the distribution of points among the categories, all you are doing is changing the composition of the force, without affect game balance. It makes a lot of sense to have points reflect the effectiveness of units, while having point distribution reflect historical availability. That way two forces in a QB will have the same effectiveness, but different, historical composition. I think the aim of a QB is to have ahistorical relative force sizes (for the sake of balance) but historical force composition (for the sake of authenticity). If we are aiming for perfect balance, we would have the two sides fight with identical equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Basebal351: 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 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My guess is you haven't been reading this site very often. The complaints here have been heavily on the German side complaining that, essentially, Allied tanks shouldn't be able to destroy German tanks. But really, every ahistorical meeting between a Greyhound and a Tiger's flank is preceded by an ahistorically stupid move by a German CM player who historically wasn't a German general in 1940's. A 37mm shell COULD take out a Tiger IF the Greyhound was allowed to go unmolested into the German flanks. HITORICALLY they didn't, because HISTORICALLY German generals protected their flank, and their Tigers (and King Tigers) with support units so that the appraoching fast armor would most certainly be engaged by SOMETHING before they ever had a shot at the flank. But since the German defense was almost certainly ahistorical, an ahostorically dead Tiger will historically be the result. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 Also... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Come on now? It will be a long day for the German commander under these conditions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ummmm... what history books have you been reading???? They WERE long days for the Germans in WWII. What'd ya think, the Germans sat arround eating French cheeses while huge swarms of German armor poured over the oncoming allies? There actually were reasons why the Allies wound up in Berlin.... really, there were, I swear! Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke: The Americans produced something like 10,000 tungsten core AP rounds (HVAP) a month from about July '44 to the end of the war. Of these, probably only 2-3 rnds would make their way into the hands of yr average Sherman gunner, as preference was given to Tank Destroyer units. TD's would average around 5 HVAP rnds per.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where did you find this data? I am not disagreeing with you, I was just wondering where this came from. My understanding was that armored units (non-TD) where not authorized ANY HVAP at all, and only got what they did outside the normal supply channels. Given BTS general reluctance to model anything other than TO&E, I wonder why they decided to make an exception in this case. Given that there are not any US/Allied infantry squads armed with the mix of weapons often reported, it would seem inconsistent to grant Shermans rounds which they were similarly not authorized. I would really like to see some definitive data about how available those magic bullets actually were to regular Armored units. My gut feeling is that the range should be between 0-3, with maybe a 50-10-25-15 percent distribution in numbers between 0 and 3. I.e., you probably won't get any, but if you do manage to steal some, you can probably steal more than one. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted January 16, 2001 Share Posted January 16, 2001 "BTS decided what the cost of a unit would be based on it's effectiveness and had nothing to do with historical anything. But now QB points are based on historical factors" This tell's it all... Unlike the author of these words I like the option of making my games equal for both sides... I also like to play some historical attack scenarios. What I like above all, is to be able to chose the way I will play At the present the Allied player has an option to buy more 50% armor then the German one, while this is a step forward in the historical perspective, it's a step back in the freedom of choice, I has a consumer/player of CM, would like to continue to have. Infantry this, Sherman that, mortar... these are personal consideration, while welcome, nothing have to do with the topic of this post. [This message has been edited by Tanaka (edited 01-17-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigdog Posted January 17, 2001 Author Share Posted January 17, 2001 Polar I think you missed the point. What I am taking about is balanced QB, so both side have even chance to win the battle. I am not talking about the full force of the Allied Nations against Germany I am talking about non Gamy small unit engagements. Maybe you could respond to the hard numbers I produced from a set up from a 2000pts QB? So if I have say 2 Panthers, and US has 2 M4E8 & 2 M18 it seems to that if I were the Allied player it would not be to hard at these odds of 2 to 1 to flank my Panthers. Or even if I go head to head chance's are that the Panthers are dead. That's what I am talking about, not weather or not the Germans are eating French cheese. Big Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 I agree with Tabaka, and BigDog. More freedom of choice in ME QB's. I was always under the impression that BTS set up the points system for balance fainess to each side not historical accuracy. I wish BTS would return CM to its earlier form, where I thought that things seemed a bit more even in the playing field. ei: the armor points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 I do find it odd that "balanced" QBs are the German player having a panzer for every Allied tank... that's balance? Cav ------------------ "Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade "AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."--Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aposotol Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Besides, the points of the armor units tend to be balanced, so if you have a panzer IV J with 117 points and a sherman M4 75 with 118 points, the should have the same capabilities. If not there, is where the game is unbalanced and not changing the points in the QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Basebal351: How historical was it for an M8 to knock out a King Tiger??? I'll leave that up to you all to decide. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Or how "historical" was it to have that King Tiger in the first place? Seriously, in a game I had a King Tiger with a knocked out gun and imobible. I parked a M8 behind it and was never able to kill it. It only took two Shermans and and a M10 to get it stopped but I never killed it. This was before 1.1 but unless something has changed in the M8's pen data, I doubt they are that dangerous to KTs. Cav ------------------ "Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade "AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."--Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Cav Scout: Sure is. Why not? Like it has been said, QB's are for balanced play. As it is now...allied has 33% more armored points. Thats even? The compensation as it is now gives the allied more armor points becouse the axis mechs have a few 7.5 cm infantry guns. So lets give the allied more tanks. Yeah that seems fair. How does a german 7.5 cm gunned halftrack compete with an allied tank? It doesnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: Sure is. Why not? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you saying that the Allied Sherman was "equal" to the Panther and that a balanced game would have equal number on both sides? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Like it has been said, QB's are for balanced play. As it is now...allied has 33% more armored points. Thats even? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, as the points are made up elsewhere. Are you saying the Germans are "to powerful" because they have more infantry points than Allies now? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The compensation as it is now gives the allied more armor points becouse the axis mechs have a few 7.5 cm infantry guns. So lets give the allied more tanks. Yeah that seems fair. How does a german 7.5 cm gunned halftrack compete with an allied tank? It doesnt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Probably about as well as most Shermans against the German tanks! Cav ------------------ "Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade "AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."--Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Ok... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Are you saying that the Allied Sherman was "equal" to the Panther and that a balanced game would have equal number on both sides?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. I never suggested this. We all know a Panther is superior to the sherman. However, I am not meaning just shermans here. As there are Jumbos and TD's that have powerful tungsten rounds. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Yes, as the points are made up elsewhere. Are you saying the Germans are "to powerful" because they have more infantry points than Allies now?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes but dont allied squads have 12 troops to axis 8 or 9? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Probably about as well as most Shermans against the German tanks!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, (I like your humor BTW ), I am talking about jumbos as well. Surely the Jumbo is a formidable opponent to the Panther. (I may be wrong though I havnt done any real tests). What about Pershings and S. Purshings? They stand up mightily to tigers and KTigers. In fact it could be argued that with tungsten rounds the mighty pershing was better then a Tiger. (not sure about the Ktiger, but that 300mm penetration tungsten is deadly). [This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: I do find it odd that "balanced" QBs are the German player having a panzer for every Allied tank... that's balance? Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> it would depend on the Panzer and on the Shermans, wouldn't it? And since CM has balanced points, certainly (by definition) an equal number of points should be balanced. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: No. I never suggested this. We all know a Panther is superior to the sherman. However, I am not meaning just shermans here. As there are Jumbos and TD's that have powerful tungsten rounds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am all for historical mixes, including the limited use of Jumbos and "exotic" rounds. I wish equipment rarity on both was better represented. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes but dont allied squads have 12 troops to axis 8 or 9?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, so if understand you think the Germans should have more points in infantry because of weaker squads but are against Allied increases in armor points even though they are generally "weaker" in ability (respective to their tanks)? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Again, (I like your humor BTW : ) ), I am talking about jumbos as well. Surely the Jumbo is a formidable opponent to the Panther. (I may be wrong though I havnt done any real tests). What about Pershings and S. Purshings? They stand up mightily to tigers and KTigers. In fact it could be argued that with tungsten rounds the mighty pershing was better then a Tiger. (not sure about the Ktiger, but that 300mm penetration tungsten is deadly). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would hope your quick battles aren't uber-tank versus uber-tank. Cav ------------------ "Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade "AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."--Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: it would depend on the Panzer and on the Shermans, wouldn't it? And since CM has balanced points, certainly (by definition) an equal number of points should be balanced. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Only if one thinks BTS has effectivly balanced the "cost" points. Then again, the "number of points" are balanced, we are disagree on their distribution. Cav ------------------ "Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade "AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."--Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 "Ok, so if understand you think the Germans should have more points in infantry because of weaker squads but are against Allied increases in armor points even though they are generally "weaker" in ability (respective to their tanks)?" Dont mince my words cav You have it all wrong. As I was saying and as it was pointed out by Jeff, the points for the tanks themselves, seperate the class of tanks available. For instance, and infact, the KT is in upwards of 300 points. The Pershing and S. Pershing which are more then formidable are around that 300 points area. The panzer IV is roughly the same price as a sherman. You make it seem as though for evey sherman you buy I can get a Tiger or KT. What I am saying is the points for the actual tanks themselves are fair and are of equel stregnth on both sides. So why not make the armor in a QB ME even as well. To me, giving 33% more armor to allied is unbalanced. Just my opinion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts