Guest JAZZA Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Sylss, I wasn't trying to be a smart arse,I was just stating a few things about the thread . My point of view is that the points allocation should have stayed the same because the unit costs made it even and if people keep losing as the allies they need better tactic's.I'm not a pro axis player either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigdog Posted January 17, 2001 Author Share Posted January 17, 2001 von Luke don't go there . Henri has got the point. If we go purely on historic bases, we mite as well just play as allied against AI because the QB Combined Arms (the benchmark of a balanced battle) against human becomes none competitive. When CM2 comes out will the QBs armor pts be like 3 to 1 or even 4 to 1 Russian to German because that's the way it was? Well that sounds fun . I love CM like all of you here. I enjoy caned battles but find them not well balanced for human to human games, so that leaves the QB for a fair non gamy small unit engagements, mano o mano. If the Axis armor cost is to low adjust the cost per unit (witch if it is it only some not all across the board and not by very much). Cav for a yuk yuk try a large battle 5000pt Combined Arms Meeting Engagement. 5 Panthers Vrs 5 M4E376 E8 & 5 M18 ohhh I will just make it with SPW 251/9, PSW 234/2 (Pumas) PSW/3 . Now instaed of maybe 2 pumas in 2000pt game you will see 4 seems we will moving further away from historical battle's. At 1/3 Allied armor point bump it effects playability of CM in the human to human battles, witch I think is the best part of CM. Big Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slyss Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 OK. One more add to this post and I'm gonna shuddup I am not happy with the point change, especially after the fact that I had no idea that this was going on. The germans obivously had less armor (OK fine), but they had less of everything else, too. Like I said, why not just alter the system even more to ensure the germans lose. Kept those allied players happy I guess I don't care that the germans get more vehicle points. Yippee. I get a couple more HT throw aways. Big deal. What if I dont feel like buying them? Well, I cant spend em on tanks so I guess my arm is twisted. This reminds me of the Clintons Socialized Health Care System. Take all my choice away. I'm so happy Jeez this post just gets my drawers in a bunch. I hope a new patch puts it back to being fair. Hmmm. Better yet. I read somewhere that Jumbos were produced in small numbers (the german puma was like this too), make them more costly to buy. Hmm. Since I just got screwed by a third, make the jumbos cost that much more then. ------------------ Play me, and I'll make yah wear your arse for a hat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 I do not see the fuss. I just played a German v US as Germans last night. US assault on a village. The ability to purchase more infantry, especially since I could get a few more AT units, really made the difference. The US player attacked me and killed my Stug (love those low cost high capability tanks) and then ran into my linked amushes of Chrecks. My reserve of two 75mm HTs killed an M24, and then his infantry ran into a wall of MG 42 steel in a rush at the second flag. I never spend all my armour points playing German anyway (or the US for that matter), and as a German I get to buy a Panther for a lower price than the E8, and a MkIV for a lower price than an M4 - 75. My AT guns are more powerful and cheaper, and my formations are more suited for more occasions. (Part of the cheapness of the E8 vs the Panther is the E8 is a much better anti infantry weapon. ) The argument for the larger US squads being better is silly, since HE and MG fire is the big killer of squads, while smaller squads based around a GPMG are better at surviving fire from these soursed while combining or diving their firepower in much better manners. Give me 7 person squads any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 1 - ME, although not common, did happens. So, they were historical. Having it managed in a way to enforce historical forces is not bad then, as is the thing about CM is. 2 - There is not bias in the way the points are distributed. You get the same points as your adversary. Something that is really uncommon in war. If you are German, you get more infantry and vehicles, all with AT capacity against all Allied AFVs, including the Super Pershing for PzFaust. If you are Allied, you get more AFVs, generally with a good anti-grunt capacity... You nedd to balance your tools diferently, and think diferently for each side, which is realistic. 3 - I play with both sides and I didn't found it a handicap for Germans. 4 - Sorry by my English. 5 - Ariel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 One thing that may also be happening is that an ahistorical but sometimes used German tactic in QBs has been closed off, forcing German players into a new mode. A former "winner tactic" (in that it was effective) was to use heavies as a hammer in the open instead of from ambush. In antitank fights, German tanks are more effective point for point. (Again, this is not because of some unfairness, but because Allied tanks are better dealing with Infantry). So, if you set up for a slugging match and trade tank for tank, the Germans will win without much sweat and tension, at which point the allies face all those MG42s. Now, the German player will be much more like the US player -- if you want to win you cannot expose your tanks needlessly. Better to spend a cheaper unit than risk the heavy to loss from some absurd little zook or Hellcat. However, this will also make German choices more realistic. More cheaper tanks, more planning of layered defenses using chrecks and ambush, and a new life for the Marder and Nashorn after they had almost went the way of the dinosaur in favor of the more rare and expensive but more effectice fist fighting tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engy Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 This may be a bit of a redirection of the conversation, but I'll let fly anyway... Assuming that some of the German Armor points were placed into Vehicles (I don't have the 1.05 to 1.1 breakdown to know if the Vehicles points were raised or not), the question really becomes, from a historical perspective, why? There is very little in the German vehicle list (excluding the basic model 251/1) that was anything but rare, or even very rare, on the Western Front for this time period (eg Puma, 251/9, 251/16, etc.) It seems that if anything, the points should get plowed back into the Armor from a historical perspective, as the German tendency toward turretless TD's increased. Or should the Germans have a separate colums for armor: Armor-TD and Armor-Tank. (I know it's not going to happen in CM, but I inserted it to emphasize my point). Historically, taking our 1000 pt ME for an example, I wasn't likely to see 1 Panther and 1 Puma in every battle (which is what the German Armor/Vehicle balance now forces), but I was a whole lot more likely to see several TDs. Can it be done as the Germans now? 1000 pt ME gives Germans 200 pts Armor: (points given for Regular) 2 JPz IV = 240 pts. NO. 3 Marders = 217 pts. NO. 1 Panther/Tiger + anything (even a Marder!). NO. In the above example, using the Marders, the German can buy 2. So, giving the Allies their 300 pts, we are saying that 2 Marders vs. a M4(76) type and an M4 is a balanced fight? Forgive me for the stream-of-consciousness style of arguing. I normally don't hop into these discussions, but this one has me riled. Next time I'll try to get a little bit of order to my logic. engy ------------------ "He who makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long." Napoleon Bonaparte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by engy: In the above example, using the Marders, the German can buy 2. So, giving the Allies their 300 pts, we are saying that 2 Marders vs. a M4(76) type and an M4 is a balanced fight? engy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That sounds like a good combination. 2 Marders or 2 Hetzers fighting 2 M4s, although with 300 points I probably don't get an M4(76) unless I go with the lowest end M4 (lots to choose from though). Plus, I throw in a half dozen chrecks for anti-armour teams and a 75 armed HT, and ton for ton it looks right on the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 t?S»driginally posted by Slapdragon: That sounds like a good combination. 2 Marders or 2 Hetzers fighting 2 M4s, although with 300 points I probably don't get an M4(76) unless I go with the lowest end M4 (lots to choose from though). Plus, I throw in a half dozen chrecks for anti-armour teams and a 75 armed HT, and ton for ton it looks right on the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slyss: 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 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They feared them... but that is because they weren't used to seeing German heavy armor on the field. But then, Germans feared the swarm of Allied tanks.. since all their crying to the Allies concerning play balancing fell on deaf ears. 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...
CavScout Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bigdog: Cav for a yuk yuk try a large battle 5000pt Combined Arms Meeting Engagement. 5 Panthers Vrs 5 M4E376 E8 & 5 M18 ohhh I will just make it with SPW 251/9, PSW 234/2 (Pumas) PSW/3 . Now instaed of maybe 2 pumas in 2000pt game you will see 4 seems we will moving further away from historical battle's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lets not forget the Germans are not losing points they are simply spread differently. It will still be 5,000 vrs 5,000. If you buy that the costs reflect capability then 1000 points in armor is no more effective than 1000 points in infantry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 One idea for players who usually play Germans and are not up on infantry based tank tactics is to just go request that whoever you choose to play allies against you let you play the QB set to armour. When I first played Squad Leader 20 odd years ago the person who taught me to play used to let me have a few extra units as a learning tool and to balance they different skill level. Eventually I got to the point that I did not need the extra units. If you choose the armour setting, you can buy all the armour you want, so it would allow German players to continue with their older tactics and enjoy the game in their own way, while the historical gamers (as historical as QBs ever are) can stick with the game as written. 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 engy: In the above example, using the Marders, the German can buy 2. So, giving the Allies their 300 pts, we are saying that 2 Marders vs. a M4(76) type and an M4 is a balanced fight? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If fighting in a vacuum, maybe not but we aren't. The Germans still have the points, on an equal basis, and have other units such as infantry to fight with. You guys keep missing that the Germans have a 100 point bonus in infantry in the same 1000 point battle. This is not a 300 vrs 200 point battle but a 1K vrs 1K battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engy Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 I have to disagree, Slap, but only slightly. In a Marder/Sherman fight, a hit=kill both ways (except for the uparmored M4's, which only helps my argument). There is no way that a non-turreted Marder can be as effective as a turreted Sherman, so the Shermans win this one. So, you suggest the Germans add 'shrecks? US adds 'zooks, which go through the front side of a Marder like it isn't there. Germans add a 75mm Halftrack. Ahhh..my point exactly. You were much more likely to see another Marder/Stug III/Hetzer than a 251/9, and I prefer to buy my forces in the "more historical" type of look. (I've never bought a Puma, and out of 15 PBEMs I've never bought a King Tiger, or JagdPanther, or JagdTiger, and only 1 251/9.) So, I add a Stug III instead. Uhhh...errr...can't do it. Not enough points. I'm forced to pick some rarer vehicle instead of what the Germans actually put in the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigdog Posted January 17, 2001 Author Share Posted January 17, 2001 Slapdragon you miss the point. we are talking about a balanced battle. Not how the Axis has to adjust to eek out a win under the courant armor allotment. In the smaller point battles it will not matter as much but when move up to the 2000pts + games the odds are will favor the Allies more. Look at earlier post for some examples. Another point I would like to make, is the Allies now have luxury ok buying Infantry support as in M4 105s or M8s. But the Axis has spend his last dime in points anti AFV armor. Big Dog 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: If fighting in a vacuum, maybe not but we aren't. The Germans still have the points, on an equal basis, and have other units such as infantry to fight with. You guys keep missing that the Germans have a 100 point bonus in infantry in the same 1000 point battle. This is not a 300 vrs 200 point battle but a 1K vrs 1K battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. but what is the point of this limitation? Why is it necessary to force the German player to only spend 2/3 what the US player does on armor? What benefit is there in an already totally non-historical Quick Battle? I would not claim it is unbalancing, I just think it is annoying and has no good purpose. It does NOT force the German player to have a more "historical" mix, quite the opposite. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: If fighting in a vacuum, maybe not but we aren't. The Germans still have the points, on an equal basis, and have other units such as infantry to fight with. You guys keep missing that the Germans have a 100 point bonus in infantry in the same 1000 point battle. This is not a 300 vrs 200 point battle but a 1K vrs 1K battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CavScout I think you are missing one of the points. Many players are not very experienced at how to use infantry. They use tanks much better, and thus would naturally prefer German tanks because these tanks often make better gun fighters in tank vs tank confrontations. In this situation the infantry points are nearly wasted since the player in question is not trained in how to fight those units -- the battle literally occurs in the armour. Many many battles had no German armour versus lots of allied armour and the German infantry was deadly armour fighters. However, fighting armour with infantry in the defensive (does not work on the offense of course) is one of the hardest skills to master in any wargame. The Germans have the tools though to make it really expensive on any US attack force if they know how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engy Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Cav... I'm not talking about vaccuums! 100 points advantage in infantry is not the same as 100 points in armor. Oftentimes, with armor, 1 shot=kill, and my armor points are gone. Not just shaken/cautious/half-strength, but gone. However, it's very rare (although it has almost happened), that I lose an entire platoon (~ 100 pts, roughly) in one shot to another platoon. So, pretend for a moment that the US does gain an advantage from this 100 point armor differential. As US, the infantry battle is not *immediately* effected by being 100 pts down (but it would show after a number of turns), but as the German, once I come face to face with 100 extra points of US armor, I can be finished in a moment. Once that happens, the German 100 point infantry advantage is completely offset by US Direct Fire HE. 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: Agreed. but what is the point of this limitation? Why is it necessary to force the German player to only spend 2/3 what the US player does on armor? What benefit is there in an already totally non-historical Quick Battle? I would not claim it is unbalancing, I just think it is annoying and has no good purpose. It does NOT force the German player to have a more "historical" mix, quite the opposite. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you want armor battle, don't select combined arms as the force pool. It really is simple. In combined arms, the units are there to support each other. Would you agree that, on the whole, the Allied tanks were better in the infantry support role over the German ones? If you want armor vrs armor pick that as a game option. Don't pick combined arms and be upset when you have to mix your force up a bit. Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bigdog: Slapdragon you miss the point. we are talking about a balanced battle. Not how the Axis has to adjust to eek out a win under the courant armor allotment. In the smaller point battles it will not matter as much but when move up to the 2000pts + games the odds are will favor the Allies more. Look at earlier post for some examples. Another point I would like to make, is the Allies now have luxury ok buying Infantry support as in M4 105s or M8s. But the Axis has spend his last dime in points anti AFV armor. Big Dog<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But it is still a balanced battle. No one is taking points away, and the German player, well played, in all the quoted situations so far, can end up with the last tank standing easy. The Hetzer is no slouch anti-infantry, and neither is the MkIV. Plus, if you do not feel comfortable getting the most out of your infantry, then just ask the person you are playing to let you shoose armour only. You can then have all the amour you want. Previously, allied players in the know bough a lot of cheap units anchored by one good unit, German players more often than not bought a core of Panthers and ignored every other weapon. In QBs at least the two sides are now more likely to be doing the same thinking, leading to a more realistic force mix. However, and this is a big however, I do agree that this will hurt players who do not know how to build a combined arms defense. Previously, a German player of minor skills could skill uses a heavy parked in the right place to eek out a minor victory. Now you would pay for that heavy in not having anything left to build a manuever force with. You would have to build a manuever force from infantry and support -- a more abstract skill than the Clint Eastwood - Fist Full of Dollars defense (aka gunfighting defense). 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 Slapdragon: I think you are missing one of the points. Many players are not very experienced at how to use infantry. They use tanks much better, and thus would naturally prefer German tanks because these tanks often make better gun fighters in tank vs tank confrontations. In this situation the infantry points are nearly wasted since the player in question is not trained in how to fight those units -- the battle literally occurs in the armour. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You may be correct but if you are they shouldn't be playing a combined arms force mix. Just go straight armor. 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 Jeff Heidman: I would not claim it is unbalancing, I just think it is annoying and has no good purpose. It does NOT force the German player to have a more "historical" mix, quite the opposite. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unless of course, one were to claim that the Germans in general had more infantry And I am not so sure about that... Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by engy: Cav... I'm not talking about vaccuums! 100 points advantage in infantry is not the same as 100 points in armor. Oftentimes, with armor, 1 shot=kill, and my armor points are gone. Not just shaken/cautious/half-strength, but gone. However, it's very rare (although it has almost happened), that I lose an entire platoon (~ 100 pts, roughly) in one shot to another platoon. So, pretend for a moment that the US does gain an advantage from this 100 point armor differential. As US, the infantry battle is not *immediately* effected by being 100 pts down (but it would show after a number of turns), but as the German, once I come face to face with 100 extra points of US armor, I can be finished in a moment. Once that happens, the German 100 point infantry advantage is completely offset by US Direct Fire HE. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually Engy -- you need to be shown some of the neater German weapons in the list. When I fight Germans I have a core of real nice anti-armour weapons, Chrecks, Pupchens, 50mm and 75mm cannon, not to mention the Hetzer and Marder for cheap manuever. I never send my big tanks out to do the gunfighter thing as either US or German. Instead, the other guy will be facing my ant, and when my 24 point chreck shreds his 214 point E8+, I will still have my tank. Next game I play I will play Germans, and I will send you the movies to show you how it works. CavScout -- lets fight one. Random Random assault on the Germans, I play defender, and then I can use the AAR to show a German defense in depth combined arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigdog Posted January 17, 2001 Author Share Posted January 17, 2001 Cav That's the point the QB Combined Arms, Meeting Engagement is the most balanced battle in CM. Perfect for a mano o mano battle. So both sides should have the same points per category not a 3 to2 point bump for allied armor. Big Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: You may be correct but if you are they shouldn't be playing a combined arms force mix. Just go straight armor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts