Talenn

Steve: Thanx for the interesting commentary. A lot of it makes sense in the context of what I've said above and I've acknowledged that no point system for a game of this scope can ever be perfect. Does that mean that it cant be closer? I dont think so. I find it a little disturbing that you leave no margin for error...ie, your view appears to be that it is as good as its ever going to be, so changing it is out of the question. Obviously CMBO underwent some changes to the points on some vehicles/weapons based on their performance in game and the experience of players with the equipment. If you had the same stance then (and I seem to recall a similar posting years ago ), we'd still be seeing Puppchens out the wazoo. I was one of the original people to point out the under-modeled MGs in CMBO and received a similar reply about how the game was right and my perception were wrong. Fine, I can accept that. But apparently, somewhere down the road, others (including yourselves) eventually came to see that they WERE indeed a bit 'off' as well. I hope that if others see a problem here (or anywhere else), that they can eventually be hammered out like the MGs (which I wholeheartedly think are correct this time around). FWIW, I'm not even 100% sure the pricing is off yet. Like I said above, it APPEARS to be 'off' based on it's capabilities compared to the capabilities of other vehicles. It may very well be accurate and I'm just not seeing all the permutation within. In fact, thats about half of the reason I posted this...to solicit other's opinions and to see if others are seeing a preponderance of StuGs over other vehicles in their QBs. Anyways, its certainly your call. But, IMO, to say that 'x' is never going to be changed because it can never be perfect is somewhat strange for a release version of a game. No matter how much you try and how hard you crunch the data, errors are bound to be made. I would imagine that even with the number of testers you had, the number of games being played now will far outnumber the tester's efforts in a matter of weeks. That gives you a FAR larger sampling of data (and a different sampling from the hardcore grogs). I hope that its possible to change the 'system' if somewhat glaring (or recurring) issues do occur. Thanx again for the reply and thanx for a great game...I love it despite my growing hatred for all things StuG!! Talenn

Bastables: All true, so I suppose it all comes down to the 'weighting' of the formula. Personally, I'd rather go with an MG, relative frontal invulnerability to almost all enemy guns, and the ability to kill anything up to a IS-2, but to each his own. Talenn

Andreas: The SU-85 is not an answer to the StuGs IMO. On a per cost basis, the StuGIIIG (mid) slaughters them at ranges of 500-600m. The StuGs usually (about 70% of the time) kill in one shot while round after round from the SU-85 bounces or 'breaks up'. Ok, now why would the SU-85 be the same (base) price as the StuG? It has no MGs (although the StuG has one), has no turret, and LOSES to the StuG. That is just one more little link into why I think the StuGs are underpriced. Both suffer the same general disadvantages, yet one fairly easily wins in a stand up fight and costs the same. When it is introduced, it wins hands down against most opposition. I dont see the logic. Any ideas? Thanx, Talenn [ October 07, 2002, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: Talenn ]

Andreas: Yes, I checked out the Valentine and it does kill it at about 600m or so if you are careful. As I said earlier, I was tending to avoid Lend Lease equipment. I suppose in those 'lean' time periods, its not really possible to avoid them if you want to have a capable AFV. The problem DOES persist until mid 44 though with most available Soviet vehicles (and AT guns). Its not until the T34/85 comes around that they have something that can reliably combat the StuGs and not have a high rarity (if there are some others, please let me know...I'm going on trial and error here and its time consuming! ). On the issue of rarity, I 'rounded' to Fall of '42. And, as you say, the Valentine isnt practical until late Spring of 43. The StuGs will be present in force from about September, I believe (I dont have the data in front of me), and nothing that is a 'real' (for lack of a better term) Soviet AFV comes along that can beat it until the T34/85. The intention here is not to 'panic monger', but to either 1) find out if there ARE alternatives (and you did state one) or 2) to raise the awareness of players so that they can begin to monitor the StuGs effectiveness per cost. A larger data sampling is obviously required, but people wont be looking for that data unless they aware of a potential problem. Herr Oberst: Yeah, I think I'm about to become a big fan of having the AI pick both forces. That way there wont be optimum units for every mission. Either that or I'll go with some Ops. The trouble there is trying to get them together for multiplayer. Marlow: The SU-76 is a no-go. It can theoretically kill them if the have Tungsten, but in practice, I havent had much luck with them frontally. They dont always fire Tungsten earlier enough, miss with them, or else fail to kill even on a hit. I ran 8 SU-76s against 5 StuGIIIG (mid) about 10 times and not once did the Soviets pull off a win. This is at engagement ranges of 500-700m where the SU-76s should begin to have effect on paper. I havent seen SU-85s or KV-85s available that early at a reasonable price tag. Perhaps playing variable rarity would help there. Thanx again for the input and discussion on this. Talenn

Berlichtingen: Regarding infantry vs AFVs, two things: 1) From the manual, pg 221 (under changes from CMBO)..."Standard grenade attacks vs tanks are reduced in effectiveness". I take that to mean that 'close assaults' in CMBB are LESS effective than in CMBO (and appear so from results in the game)...granted there are molotov cocktails, but they dont seem overly effective. In the right siutation, they can work, but I'd hardly call them reliable. 2) If there is a Russian infantry AT weapon other than the above available in 42/43, please show me where. Do they have ATMMs or somesuch somewhere that I'm just missing? Its obvious that compared to CMBO, ALLIED infantry have a much harder time destroying AFVs unless in built up areas (where the StuGs arent as useful anyways). I dont see any way in which you can think that Allied infantry are stronger or even AS strong vs AFVs in this game. Regarding Point Value: Obviously your opinion is a valid as mine. As I said above, time will tell. But I bet you will see a higher proportion of StuGs in most battle than even more 'common' vehicles just because they are so effective. Andreas: You make some very valid points regarding the T34 vs T70. A lot is going to depend on the map and enemy force selection, but I think StuGs are going to be present in most battles, rendering many of the points you mentioned, moot. I could be overanalyzing here, but based on the Hetzer experience in CMBO, I'm planning on seeing PLENTY of StuGs in QBs. Concerning point values, yes, I agree that its nearly impossible to balance 100% accurately. But you CAN look at trends and 'overused' vehicles/units. If certain units are being seen over and over again by players in QBs, then it stands to reason that they may to be too much of a 'deal'. IIRC, the Puppchen (sp?) was one such weapon in CMBO. They were 'accurately modeled' and cost too little, so people bought them in droves because they were so cost effective. I think the same forces will be at work here. Again, it may take some time to see trends (there are a lot of time periods out there and a large variety of vehicles to try out), but in 3 of the 4 QBs I've done so far with people, they have had StuGs in that time period in lieu of any other AFVs...that right there is telling me something. Thanx for the info on the Valentine. I'll give it a try as well, but I had been avoiding using too much Lend Lease stuff if possible. I want to play East Front, not Western Front in Russian uniforms. Talenn (edited for typos of which I'm sure there are more...) [ October 07, 2002, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Talenn ]

redwolf: Yes, I think you are on the right track now for what I'm looking for. It all comes down to the points as far as QBs are concerned. Its true that the StuG lacks MGs and has a mediocre ammo load, but the general 'weakening' of infantry compared to CMBO means that the MG isnt as badly missed. ANYONE with a weapon can stop an infantry advance now (and rightly so), so the addition or loss of a few vehicle MGs is less noticeable IMO. Also, you have to look at the theater of operations and the time of the StuG's 'dominance'. This isnt a bazooka heavy Western Front. There are NO viable Infantry AT weapons in 42-43 for the Russians. This means that it falls to their own AFVs to take out the enemy AFVs in most cases (especially on the attack, where the defending StuGs are completely in their own element. If you have a vehicle out there that is effectively invulnerable beyond 100m (frontally), that makes it VERY tough for a Russian advance. Ok, now I'm sure there are those of you out there who will say "Well, thats the way it was"...fine, maybe so (although I'm not 100% convinced of that utter invulnerability), but who the heck wants to GAME that? The point values are in place to provide a balance playing field (within reason) and to create an interesting and challenging game. IMO, the point value of the StuGs does not adequately reflect its capabilities in those years. Treeburst155: Ideally, people shouldnt have to have 'gentlemens agreements' about certain vehicles and whatnot. Thats the job of the point values, especially now that rarity is in the equation. If the cost is set to accurately reflect the capabilities, then there shouldnt be any 'no brainer' picks that need to be avoided by outside agreement. So, what are people's takes on the cost? Do you think its set to a level that reflects the capability? If so, my prediction is that the T34s will become an endangered species in that time frame (and probably overall). A T70 is a LOT cheaper, and has the same kill ability to the flanks as the T34. Both will be equally dead if a StuG hits it, but you'll have more T70s (almost twice as many). Unless you know your opponent isnt fielding vehicles (Infantry or Mech formation), I just cant see spending 111 points for a T34. Talenn

wwb_99: I'll definately grant you that lack of MGs is an issue, but the ability to 'only' engage about 4 targets is not a problem IMO. Given that they are the same price or cheaper than their primary opponents, there arent going to BE 4 targets for every StuG. If the Russians Attack and field 3-6 T34s (assuming a modest point engagement), the Germans can field at least 3 StuGs. 3x4=12...or more than double the number present, even accounting for double and triple kills. Treeburst155: Thats kind of what I'm afraid of. I've already played 3 QBs vs random folks and in all three, the primary German vehicle was the StuG. Its going to become tiresome very quickly running up against them every time I attack. You'd think the German army didnt use PzIIIs or something... redwolf: On an operational or grand tactical level, exploitation is an issue that StuGs might have trouble with. In a lower lever tactical game, its not a really big deal. Personally, I'd like to see more disdavantages for turret-less AFVs, but I just dont see much of a problem with them in CMBB except in knife fights which are less common than in CMBO. Are there any Tournaments coming up for CMBB? If there is a loophole here to expoit, that would be one of the quickest ways to find it! Talenn

After some more testing, there is another factor at work here... When you finally DO have T34s/SU-76s close enough to actually kill a StuG frontally, they spend more time reversing and running than shooting. This makes no sense to me... They will happily shoot it out at 500m where they are dying in one shot almost 90% of the time and they can do nothing unless they hit the gun. But get them into range where their weapons can almost penetrate, and they run like schoolgirls. Also, when is Tungsten 'available'? Sure, by 10/43 it seems that 1 in 3 or so has A (single) Tungsten round or maybe you are very lucky and carry two, but with the new damage model, that rarely kills a StuG even IF you manage to hit with it. So, when is Tungsten available in any quantites likely to influence the battle? Finally, I'm going to lean on this a little...it still seems to me that (absent 46347 facts and quotes and armor stats) that the StuGs survivability (or the 76.2s penetration) is a little 'off'. At ~220m and the chance to kill is NONE, I just think that something might be a bit too much in the StuG's favor. As I mentioned above, its just extremely strange that no previous tactical game I've played has ever modeled this like this (ASL, TANKS!, Steel Panthers, Eastern Front, Panzer!?--Yaquinto game, amongst others). I suppose that its possible that they are all wrong and CMBB is right, but that seems less likely than the alternative. I'm not bashing CMBB, BFC, or their modeling, but is it possible that there is room for error in some of the calculations? NO chance of a kill at 220m? I guess after having just run about 50 test against various Soviet vehicles from ranges of 120m to 700m in 10/43 vs 4 StuGIIIG (mid) and never once coming close to seeing the Soviets winning the engagement despite having more points in the field, I'm a little skeptical. Has anyone found ANYTHING that is realisitic that can kill the StuGs?

aka_tom_w: I wouldnt get your hopes up on those T34/57s...I mentioned 'realistically available' as one of the parameters to fight the StuGs and ~200% rarity doesnt cut it there! So far, nothing on the reasonably common list has been effectve beyond ~100m. Also, note that the StuGIIIF/8 was not killed in Nippy's tests. The REGULAR StuGIIIF (which was killed in his tests) has only 50 armor. Once the late model hits (around fall of 42), the 80 armor is practically invulnerable to all 'standard' Russian guns until the 85mm (Tungsten notwithstanding...but dont count on having much/any). kipanderson: Very nice summary. You mentioned that the Soviets tended to have more AT guns (tank guns included, I would wager) in ratio to the German 'uber tanks' and I would be inclined to agree. Unfortunately, given the costs in the game, this will not occur. I think that is the real issue at this point...continued below. Bastables: Yes, and the turreted vehicles should have very real advantages, but in a game where the player has near total control and Borg Spotting is present, the limits of the turretless vehicles are far less critical. All: Ok, so by now, we've established that the StuGs really were practically unkillable to the front. Now that that is settled, the real question is whether it is 'costly' enough in the game to reflect that. Kipanderson mentioned that the 'uber tanks' were usually outnumbered by the Soviets. That seems like a sound way to overwhelm them and its one of the ways the Allies dealt with the uber tanks in CMBO as well. But unfortunately, with the StuGs being so cheap (pointwise), this is seldom going to be the case. At best you are looking at parity and that is a losing proposition in most battles. It will be interesting to see how this pans out in 'competitive' play. If I had to guess, there is going to be a fair amount of 'StuG Abuse' going on in QBs set between Fall of 42 and mid-44. I just dont see people paying MORE points for a PzIII/IV when the StuG is so much more survivable. I guess we are in 'wait and see' mode for a while on that one though. Thanx again for all of the info. Talenn

Great stuff in here! Ok, so the general gist of what most of y'all are saying is that for all intents and purposes, the StuG IIIF and up WAS unkillable frontally until mid '44? Is that the case? It just strikes me as odd that no prior simulation has ever modeled them that way. It also strikes me as odd that the Russians were never concerned (at least in account that I have read) about the StuG at all. The Tiger, sure...Panthers...yup...the StuG? Doesnt seem to make it on to the 'feared' list. wwb_99: You mentioned that it was not uncommon for a battery of StuGs to take out 10 T34s. Is that due to superior crew quality, optics, gun, tactics, all of the above or because the T34s couldnt kill them frontally. If it was true (and I'm not disputing that), then shouldnt the vehicle cost be raised to to reflect that capability?...ie, if 3 can kill 10 without breaking a sweat and the 3 costs you ~360 points to the 10's 1110, there is something wrong with a formula somewhere. aka_tom_w: Yes, this is exactly what I'm looking for. It appears to me that in QBs set from 9/42 till mid 44, Russian armor is SOL. And it isnt going to be the highly priced Tigers shutting them down, but the humble StuG. redwolf: Obviously a 'dynamic' changing point value system would be ideal, buts its not realistic to believe that its really even possible to create. So, as per above, IMO, I'd rather err on the side of a vehicle to be too pricey and rarely bought (unless random rarity makes it a bargain for that battle) than a buy that is so good no one will pass it up. I see this being the new 'Hetzer', only worse. There WERE things in the Allied arsenal in CMBO that could take out the Hetzer frontally...not so with the StuG in CMBB. Warmaker: I can accept the Tiger being a terror to the Soviet Armor until mid 44. It should be. And you pay the price for it...its not cheap to field them in the game. But it seems strange that its NOT the Tiger that will be terrorizing them...why bother? For the cost of 1 Tiger, you can get 2 StuGs and I'd rather have another 75mm than a few MGs any day. FWIW, would any of y'all actually spring for a MkIII or MkIV if StuGIIIs are available? MAYBE on an attack, but even then, dead tanks are worse than live assault guns. Either of those tanks can be killed by a T34 at most ranges, so why buy them and worry about it? Anyways, I'd like to see some 'battle reports' from folks fighting with and against the StuGs. I'd also be curious to see what shows up your QBs more often...StuGs or PzIII/IVs...I know which my money would be on. Thanx again for the discussion...its been educational and interesting. Talenn

Hey guys, Thanx for the input so far. Ok, I have no 'beef' (if you will) with the StuGs taking out the T34s. That fits with my reading and other tactical gaming escapades just fine. Its the immunity to damage that I wonder about. At anything more than 100-120m, its almost impossible for any Soviet AFV to kill the StuGIIIF (and on up) frontally. I've never seen them modeled this way in any other system and I dont ever recall Russian concern over their guns be totally ineffective until the Tiger showed up. If they really WERE practically immune to return fire, shouldnt the price (in game) reflect that somewhat more heavily? That is a HUGE tactical advantage that outweighs many of the other disadvantages, especially given the more open nature of the maps on the Eastern Front. redwolf: Agreed, that I am focusing on the armor battle. That is what concerns me in the game. Infantry modeling appears excellent. Real-world tactics are now required and it feels 'right'. Throw in armor, and it gets a little bit fuzzy. The 75mm on the StuG IIIs has little trouble routing out entire platoons of infantry even without MGs in the mix. ~30 rounds of HE do more than their share of damage, especially if the enemy armor has been eliminated or neutralized. Since infantry are now less 'powerful' than in CMBO, AFVs take a step up. So, in summary, the StuGs immunity feels a little off and if that is indeed historically correct, the cost should reflect that type of advantage that it enjoys. Has anyone tried QBs and seen the StuGs in action yet? Have any Russian players come up with a way to counter them yet (assuming the StuGs are on the defensive). Thanx again, Talenn

Hey folks, Ok, first of all, I'm not a source-quoting, stat-memorizing, uber-grog like some around here. I have a fair share of knowledge of WW2 in general and vehicles effectiveness, but there are definatly holes in my knowledge-base. This could be one of them... That said, I'm going to post an observation and the 'uber grogs' out there can either see if I'm on the right track, or (politely, if possible) refute it and say why. OK, to me, it appears that the 'uparmored' StuGIIIF and F8 are a bit over the top in terms of, if not historical effectiveness (on which I'm fuzzy), then on a 'per point' basis (which is easier to dispute). They seem to merrily trash almost any Soviet vehicle that is realistically available until the appearance the the T34/85. They come down to a reasonable 'rarity cost' in the Fall of 42 and remain 'dominant' until somewhere around Spring of 44. Their game cost is a VERY modest 102/103 points base. My problem with them is that easily dispatch the T34s in one shot while remaining almost immune to return fire beyond point-blank range. Were they REALLY that effective? If so, why did Germany feel the pressing need to get Tigers and (later) Panthers into service? Why not just build more StuGIIIFs which were cheaper, easier to build, and more reliable? Obviously a tank has some advantages over an assault gun when attacking, but the IIIF seems to be the ultimate in terms of cost effectively annihilating Soviet armor. By that rationale, also why didnt the Russians develop a 'counter' to it earlier? The T34/85 was widely thought to exist as a counter the Tiger's appearance. Why didnt they notice this earlier AFV that they couldnt kill and respond? FWIW, I'm completely pleased with the new engine, particularly in the area of AFV combat. But no system is perfect and there definately exist plenty of places for errors to creep in. So, my first question would be: Were they REALLY that effective? if so, then my second would be: Were they REALLY that common? A +10-20% rarity tag indicates that they were fairly widespread. If so, then my final question would be: Are they REALLY priced correctly in points? 102 seems like a real bargain for a vehicle that can kill almost all opposition with relative impunity. I will grant you that its mediocre ammo loadout, lack of MGs, and turretless nature are all disadvantages, but do they really offset the ability to neatly win AFV vs AFV combat for a cheaper cost (T34/M41-43s cost around 111). All the extra MGs, cannister rounds, and HE rounds in the world wont help the T34s when they are reduced to smouldering heaps by the Wonder-StuG. Finally, I acknowledge that a 'static' point system is never going to be 100% accurate. A T34 will obviously be worth at least 111 points if all the enemy has is 37mm ATs, while its so much useless scrap in the face of heavy German armorin the open plains. So how to quantify that into one point value is a definate challenge. That said, I'd lobby for a vehicle to be 'overpriced' and seldom seen rather than underpriced and in every battle where its rarity is remotely low. And that is the route I'm pretty sure these StuGIIIF/F8s will be taking. They are just too good an AT platform NOT to take in a competitive battle. If you read this far, thanx for your time. If you havent already done so, test out those StuGs for yourself and see what you think. Then come back and let me know if they are underpriced, overpowered, or if I'm just missing something crucial in my analysis. Thanx again, Talenn

Charles: Thanx for the update! Out of curiousity, how was it fixed? Does the host get the briefing now too, or does the client not get it? Thanx again, Talenn

Yes, I've mentioned the same thing and havent seen a response yet as to whether its a 'bug', an oversight, or on purpose. Maybe you'll have better luck. Talenn

Stixx: Thanx for the Bump. I guess not a lot of people are playing TCP/IP matchups with Random conditions yet. Are PBEM's given the same briefing? Talenn

I believe the 'Large' and 'Huge' refer to the total size of the forces over the whole OP. You'll rarely have a ridiculous force from the beginning and if your playing a decent opponent, you'll be begging for those reinforcements! Talenn

Wow, this stuff gets buried fast! Chad Harrison: Thanx for the input. I did try the briefing hotkeys but it didnt work. I see your point about wanting to set the conditions, but I'd still like Random to be a 'fair' option. Sometimes its nice to have to build a balanced force without knowing what you'll be walking into. It can cut down on the 'cheese factor' a bit as well. Has anyone else seen a way to do it in a QB? Or should the client NOT have access to that info before purchase? Thanx again, Talenn

Ok...going down for the final time... Anyone know? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?

Hate to bump, but I'm hoping someone knows!

Hey all, Question for the Peanut Gallery, please: Can the host of a QB (TCP/IP) see the 'Briefing Screen' before purchasing troops? The client gets the briefing report when they join the game and see what the map conditions are before they buy and that can be a MAJOR advantage. We just played our first TCP/IP game tonight and went full random for the map and tree coverage etc. The host bought his force after seeing that he was attacking, in Oct 44 in the North. That was all the info he got. The Client saw the Briefing Report which had: Tree Coverage is Random. Tree Coverage is Light Buildings are Random. Building are Small Town. Hills are Random. Hills are Gentle. It appears that the screen is only supposed to show them 'Random', but its giving the results as well as a separate line. This kind of kills the point of picking 'random' IMO, especially if only one side knows the conditions before picking their forces. Does the host have access to the same info (hitting 'alt-b' didnt bring up a briefing screen when in the buy menu)? If not, shouldnt the client be under the same restrictions? Thanx a lot for any answers on this. Talenn

wwb_99 et al: Rarity was set to 'variable' but each time I've tried it, I've had the same results so it wasnt a fluke of the rarity one time. Moon: Thanx for the clarification. I hate to scream 'bug' because so many people do that when they just dont understand something...hence my original quest for more info. IMO, its good to catch them now and squash 'em early! Talenn

Andrew Hedges: Yes, that ammo loadout is NICE. I read that the higher proportion of automatic weapons a squad has, the lower the ammo load. With no Squad LMG, they have a pretty low ratio there. Talenn

Ok, I found them again. July, 1941 (not 42..sorry), Finland frontal area, Soviet Combined Arms, Mechanized Division. Mech Rifle Bn, 41. Platoon= 1x 12 point HQ 3x 24 point Squand 1x 100 point PTRD Team That is the culprit. Is that a correct cost for them or should it be 10 as well? Maybe the PTRD is 'rare' for that time period? If so, maybe equip them with more common equipment (or no AT team at all) so that they are actually a viable unit. For myself, I cant see spending 188 points to get 88 points worth of infantry and 1 semi-effective AT weapon...not when I can have 4 45mm AT guns for the same cost in 'Support' points. That is what leads me to believe that its a simple mistype. If its not, what is the rationale there? Thanx again, Talenn

Michael Dorosh & Dowarisch: You missed the point. There are 100 point teams included in the Coy with 33 point Squads throwing the points way off. My main question was about those. If you read the post, you'll see that I EXPECTED to have few infantry, but was surprised when I saw that team in there making them unable to be purchased, even in a mid sized 1000 point battle. What is it about this forum that you cant question anything or ask for clarification without being called a 'whiner' by someone?? Andrew Hedges: Thanx for the input. I did end up with the Recon group. Nice troops, no squad support weapons though...ouch on these wide open maps! The ATR team listed at 100 points, not 10, hence my question as to whether its a 'bug' or maybe just a really rare AT weapon for the time or something. Anyone else see teams seeming way over the top in price? I wish I had saved the battle parameters to see if I could recreate it again. Thanx, Talenn

Hey folks, I'm fiddling with the Quick Battles to get a feel for what can be purchased and how the variable rarity works. I fire up a 1000 point mostly random battle as the Russians and get Axis Assault, July, 42. No problem. Since I didnt know the battle type, I have up both set to Combined Arms and Mechanized Division. Now when I go to buy my force, out of 1000 points, I can only spend 295 on Infantry and 177 on Support. Fine...no probs, I AM Mech afterall... Problem is that you cant buy any realistic infantry with that. Only ONE Platoon. The real issue is that for some reason, the PTRD ATR team cost 100(!) points. They are attached to the platoons if I try and buy a Coy and run WAY over the Support limit. 100 points for a TEAM? I tried to see if they were 'rare' in the Support pick and that accounted for the cost, but there arent any there to buy. End result is that the only way to get more than one Platoon of Infantry is to pick one MR Platoon and one Recon Platoon. That just seems a bit silly to me. I understand not wanting people to be able to 'a la carte' their Coys in QBs by allowing selling off assets, but if the assets are costing more than the base platoon, something is a bit off. I hate to say 'bug' at this stage, but whats up the 100 point teams? Is that correct? Did I just pick the exact force composition mix to screw myself up? I realize that 1000 points isnt a huge battle, but IMO, you should at least be able to get a reasonable force out it. Thanx for any input on this? Talenn