Fernando Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 People seems to agree Americans get 33% more armor point than Germans. I think thet get 50% more points In a 2000 points ME Germans get 400 armor points and Americans get 600 armor points. That's 200 more points than Germans get. AFAIK 200 is 50% of 400, so Americans get 50% more armored points than Germans or Germans get 33% less armor points than Americans, but I maybe wrong. [This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 01-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fernando: but I maybe wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes. 400 is 2/3 (66.7%) of 600. That makes 600 33.3% more than 400. ------------------ You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV 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 Vanir: Yes. 400 is 2/3 (66.7%) of 600. That makes 600 33.3% more than 400. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry Vanir, but he was right. Percentages are just fractions. 400 is 2/3rds of 600, and 600 is 3/2 of 400. So yes, the Americans receive 50% more armor points than the Germans. As far as Cavvy is concerned, ignore him. He takes any criticism of the game to be prima facia evidence that you must be a Neo-Nazi. This is a prime example of that. He managed to make the leap from someone asking about unequal points between Germans and Allies all the way to claiming someone thinks that Panthers are the equal to Shermans, with absolutely no help from anyone in between. That is just typical of his inability to put together a cohesive or logical position. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir: Yes. 400 is 2/3 (66.7%) of 600. That makes 600 33.3% more than 400. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But 50% of 400 is 200, so US gets 200 pts or 50% more than the Germans (half again more).Also 600/400= 1.5 = 100% + 50%, ie. 600 is 150% of 400. Henri 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: Are you saying that the Allied Sherman was "equal" to the Panther and that a balanced game would have equal number on both sides? Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can you say strawman? Who said anything of the kind? Of course, beyond the fact that you are just making up arguments for your opponents, CM at least thinks they are roughly the same. Cost for a Panther VG (late): 199 Cost for a M4A3(76)W+: 205 Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt.Tom Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Now now now I think Bigdog asked: "Please don't start a flame war on this post," So why can't we all just get along? Let's have a group hug, ok? 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: As far as Cavvy is concerned, ignore him. He takes any criticism of the game to be prima facia evidence that you must be a Neo-Nazi. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Weren't you just crying to Slap to "let it go"? Oh well... *POINTS TO SIG!* ------------------ "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...
Basebal351 Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke: Basebal351: First you complain because you want to fight with ahistorical force pools<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm? Hey buddy, when did I ever advocate fighting with "ahistorical force pools?" If you'd take the time to read my posts above, you'd see that I agree with the current numbers between armor, favoring the Allies. And I agreed with that disparity for the EXACT same reason you did. It appears that you're trying to pick an argument with someone who had the exact same point of view as you, before you even showed up. Thanks, Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basebal351 Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 And again, that's for HISTORICAL purposes ONLY. Anything dealing with a "balanced" game, between armor forces might need adjusting between the point values. Thanks, Jim 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: Weren't you just crying to Slap to "let it go"? Oh well... *POINTS TO SIG!* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I will take you inability to respond meaningfully as an inability to respond meaningfully. Par for the course. If you can't address the issues, attack the person instead. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JAZZA Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: "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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I totally agree,the individual unit cost's is what keeps it fair. 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: I will take you inability to respond meaningfully as an inability to respond meaningfully. Par for the course. If you can't address the issues, attack the person instead. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL! "Attack"? Were you or were not, in the last week or so, crying to Slapdragoon to "let it go"? Bitte schreien Sie nicht! 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] [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-17-2001).] 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: LOL! "Attack"? Where you or where not, in the last week or so, crying to Slapdragoon to "let it go"? Bitte schreien Sie nicht! Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your inability to form an argument without resorting to fallacy is going to be pointed out regardless of what you might wish for. Your continuing obsession with me is not relevant to that, although I am flattered. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Lets see the "verbündeter Vorteil" in armor support in QB meeting engagements. This is an example from a 1000 point QB. The Americans have: The Germans have: What is the problem? The American could get one 76 armed tank and a lesser 75mm armed one while the German could go with a Panther or a Tiger! 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: Your inability to form an argument without resorting to fallacy is going to be pointed out regardless of what you might wish for. Your continuing obsession with me is not relevant to that, although I am flattered. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My dear Jeff, you may wish to review the thread. You attaccked first and then cry foul when anything is said back. We, where I come from, call that a cry-baby. No less was expected from you. Good job! 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...
von Lucke Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Where did you find this data?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> See the US Tungsten Availability in 1.1 thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bigdog: ...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... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't forget about those Pumas!!!! (Hey, I kid BigDog! Really!) But seriously folks, we finished a QB not too long ago in which my M4A3(76)'s (both of 'em) got whacked by his Puma's before I even saw his 2 Panthers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Basebal351: Hmmm? Hey buddy, when did I ever advocate fighting with "ahistorical force pools?" If you'd take the time to read my posts above, you'd see that I agree with the current numbers between armor, favoring the Allies. And I agreed with that disparity for the EXACT same reason you did. It appears that you're trying to pick an argument with someone who had the exact same point of view as you, before you even showed up. Thanks, Jim <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, "buddy" but that last bit was for Panther131 --- your and his posts ran together there for a bit. And you'd have to have been here this time last year to be around before I showed up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slyss Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 ROFLMAO;p I've been playing this game QB for days now and never noticed the new "forced" point differential. BTW, I play the axis and still win I was also kind of wondering how the allied player managed to purchase a jumbo and 2 greyhounds while I only had 2 99 point StuHs. Now right there, not the 2000 point battle, but the meager 1000 point battle I played shows even a greater disadvantage for the axis. (theoretic) So do I feel at a disadvantage? I'll say yes to that. Does this add to the historic value of the game? I'll say yes to that, too. Do I think its fair? No... OK. So if everyone wants this game so historical, then just halve the german points altogether? What everyone is saying here that speaks for the allies says they should lose. So screw them every chance you get. Well I got news, this is a game. We are gamers. Gamers are people. People like to play a FAIR game. This entire post almost makes me wanna puke just like going over to someones house and playing monopoly, when suddenly, they come up with a new house rule and screw yah when the game was fair. Honestly, I really dont care. When I win my next QB, I'll just enjoy the victory even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 This is not an opinion, but I would like a clarification. I was under the impression that the point cost of units had been designed to ensure a fair (balanced) battle between two players. Now I am hearing two different reasons why the Allies get more points in meeting engagements. a) To compensate the fact that Allied tanks are inferior -i.e. to ensure a "fair" fight. To ensure historicity. Which is it? If it is (a), then the original point distribution is flawed. If so, what was the rationale for the original point cost table?And if so, whynot just change the point cost of the units? If it is (, then it means not only that the Germans should lose most of the time, but that most of the time the German units should be of inferior quality and numerically inferior.In 1944-45 on the Western Front, the German inferiority in numbers did not apply only to armor, but also to every other arm of combat. Can someone explain exactly what the rationale for this is? Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slyss Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Henri, I'm with yah in this one too (see my previous post). Like I said, keep the allied players happy. keep screwing the germans. Maybe this game is more realistic then I thought. Allied players fear the german armor just like the real sherman crews did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JAZZA Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've been playing this game QB for days now and never noticed the new "forced" point differential. BTW, I play the axis and still win<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This happened in one of the beta's in between 1.05 and 1.10, so if you've only been playing "days" you wouldn't notice it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What everyone is saying here that speaks for the allies says they should lose. So screw them every chance you get<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No one is saying the allies should lose.On one hand you've got people saying the german armour points should have stayed the same because the unit cost's already made it even.Then there are people saying that there is nothing wrong with the change's, because they kept losing as allies before or because it's more historical.You'll find people here that prefer the allies but still think the german points shouldn't have been changed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well I got news, this is a game. We are gamers. Gamers are people. People like to play a FAIR game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is why this thread started,because some people thought it was fair before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Henri, the Allies do not get more points, they get a larger allocation of their points to go into armor in a combined arms engagement. Both sides still have the same number of total points. I think the Germans get a higher allocation in the Vehicle category. I agree that this was a bad idea. Who ever said that QBs should have this token nod to being historical? Its not like they are remotely historical even with this, so what is the point? I think people are going way, way overboard with the implications that this is some kind of pro-Allied agenda though. Argue the points, not the motivation. You have no idea what the motivation is, and even if you did it would not have any bearing on the validity of the argument. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slyss Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Ok so I said days. Well, Its been enough days for me to get familiar enough with the game to understand it. Like I need to go to school for 4 years to understand or even qualify to express my viewpoints for a game thats still relatively new. Forgive me. I meant a couple weeks ok? Is it my imagination or do people just want to win the arguement and refuse to get to the point. Please don't twist my words against me to start another invalid concept. Off to the slapping machine with you ------------------ Play me, and I'll make yah wear your arse for a hat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JAZZA Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I agree that this was a bad idea. Who ever said that QBs should have this token nod to being historical? Its not like they are remotely historical even with this, so what is the point?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly! The whole historical argument for QB m/e's doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts