CavScout

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Napoleon1944: One thing I have noticed is that the tac AI for tanks aquires the AT teams far too easily. Even when there are many inf targets closer, the AI picks off the AT teams. When it comes down to a player losing all his tanks and only left with some AT teams, forget it. The side with the last tank standing is usually the winner in my experiences. In fact, players surrender now when they have lost their last tank, which usually turns out to be a German player. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds like poor tactics or play style more than anything. I have won several games with nothing but infantry left and the enemy having three (or maybe it was 2) Stugs left. Giving up because you lost your tanks is like quiting a baseball game because the other guy scores 4 runs in the first inning. You got to play the whole game out. [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-22-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: Wow, Cav and Slap really take the cake. You two do nothing in the way of "adding" to a discussion. You only belittle, mock, and generally act like spoiled little brats. One would be hard pressed to recognize your ages above that of 12 at times. Some people here want to talk about making the game more flexible and different and all you two can contribute is hair pulling and childish attitudes. What Robert suggested is completely reasonable but you, Slap, take it to the extreme and then mock him. Why don't you grow up or better yet leave this BBS to the adults. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I find it ironic that those crying for changes to the game to suite their playing needs instrad of using the available options to set-up a game that suits them are calling others "spoiled little brats". 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]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanaka: I entirely agree with you, specially this part "I'm a grownup and complete able to make a conscious choice in this matter... ...Why am I not allowed to do that?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One would think "grown-ups" would make use of features that give these choices.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert Olesen: I want freedom of choice when setting up a QB. Both regarding force setup and the ability to use an existing map. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You do know there are choices other than combined arms?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WolfLord: CavScout, if its proof you are looking for, just go back to CM ver. 1.05. There you will find equality in QB Combined Arms (Meeting Engagement) points. You seem to be consistently missing the point, which is: A difference has been noticed between a previous ver. of the game and the current version. Furthermore, this difference is what has unbalanced the game. IMHO, this portion of the game was not broken in 1.05, why fix it now???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What unbalance? You have presumed some unbalance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Why haven't Slapdragon and CavScout told BTS they were wrong to think that there was an unfair advatage before, since they have stated time and again that the force ratios cannot influence balance to begin with? Why the double standard? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who says I thought it was "unfair" before? I never paid much attention to the points untill the crying started about the change. I had never compared them. Secondly, I don't think it affects place balance either way. So why would I care how it goes? BTS, can mix it up some more for all I care. I just don't buy the cries of those who want to play Germans and how unfair it is to them. Why is that a double-standard? I don't think it affects play balance, either way, so why would I advocate any change? Either way I'll play either side. 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 01-20-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: How in the world would you ever come to that conclusion? Was it in the manual? Did it come as part of your charter mebership in the "American is #1 and never lost a battle!" club?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You said this in response to this, "Combined arms just means the force will be a combination of the different force types. Nothing more." All along I had assumed you have a legit copy of CM, complete with manual. Perhaps I am wrong. Anyone with the manual knows that it say, "Lastly, COMBINED ARMS allows you to buy units from all combat arms." It is on page 110, Purchasing Units in the Quick Battle section. So yes, it is in the manual. I suggest you read it, if you have it, or buy a legit copy of CM so you can. 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]

I think we have to be careful not to confuse combat engineers and regular engineers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: There seems to be a way of thinking, that you NEED to have as much armor as possible. One might suggest choosing an "armored" force then, but if you do your enemy knows you'll be going heavy on tanks and can counter easily.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is simply untrue as the point pools for the other force pools (infantry, support...) are nearly the same as in combined arms. 1,000 point game Quick Battle Meeting Engagment: Force-Combined Arms/Armor Infantry-620/520 Support-248/208 Vehicle-250/200 Armor-200/1000 Artillery-150/150 There is very little point shift other than armor and even then those matter little as you want more armor points to spend in the combined arms. If you select armor and spend 300 points in armor you will have roughly the same force as combined arms. 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]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WolfLord: Answer to your first point: Because I don't want to play an Armor ME. I prefer having a Combined Arms force as this allows generation of a great diversity of units built around a sufficient (not large) armor force. Now, this is not possible for Germany. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly how does combined arms offer all that much more "diversity"? 1,000 point game Quick Battle Meeting Engagment: Force-Combined Arms/Armor Infantry-620/520 Support-248/208 Vehicle-250/200 Armor-200/1000 Artillery-150/150 There is very little point shift other than armor and even then those matter little as you want more armor points to spend in the combined arms. If you select armor and spend 300 points in armor you will have roughly the same force as combined arms.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie: THe whole idea of a QB being historical is absurd.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So why even bother with choosing dates for a QB? Why not just have the option of buying ANY unit? Seems that there is some "historical" constraints on QBs. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> How often would you see nearly identical forces engaging in battle in WWII (or any other modern war, for that matter)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If avoiding "identical" forces is an aim, then it WAS gained by having different force pool mixes in QB MEs. Seems this is a reason FOR the changes... 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]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: But gee, CavScout, I never used the word "equal" to begin with. In fact, what I said is *precisely* what you just repeated back, with the addition that the ratios would be the same for both sides. The reason one might come to that conclusion is that up until quite recently the ratios were the same for both sides! Gosh, go figure! So I guess this would be yet another example of you quoting someone saying something they did not in an effort to bolster you argument, and you know what we call that! You are, at the least, very consistent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well Mr. Clinton the definition of "is" is... oopps... wait a second... Well Mr. Heidman it seems to me that "..ratios were the same for both sides." does mean they were "equal". Is your argument now that "ratios were the same" does not mean the "ratios were equal"? Seems to me that points being the "same" means the same thing as points being "equal".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Then what *is* the point? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The same as the infantry or armor force selection. Combined arms just means the force will be a combination of the different force types. Nothing more. I have never associated combined arms with "equal". That's what the points are for. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> We have shown that it does not and cannot create a "historical" fight, so provide us with a different explanation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, you say it is not any more "historical" than the original force pool points. Seems to me you have a push. It affects "historical" forces in no way, for or against. In that case, it doesn't really matter which you use. If one accept your position. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What does the manual have to do with anything? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Try to figure out where you have come to the conclusion that combined arms means "equal" force pool points. This seems to be the crux of your side's argument yet no one has yet to say where it came from. Perhaps it came out in the manual, on this board by BTS, in a readme or maybe it was sent, in secret, to the German inclined players to give them false security . I don't know where you guys have come up with it but it sounds like people may have assumed something that just wasn't the case. [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-19-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: The point of a QB is to try to give the players some standard method for dividing up their selections. Forcing the players to divide them up differently defeats the entire purpose. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This seems to be a mantra but where did it come from? It certainly isn't in the manual.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Another interesting angle – I can't remember whether I heard this here or read it in Cornelius Ryan's book (maybe both) – I think the Germans would fire AP to make a hole in the wall, and then put HE through afterwards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> When in the Cav (1-1 Cav, 1st AD) we were doing train-ups for Bosnia we had several different load-outs for our 25mm guns on the M3s. One was a HE load with training rounds mixed in. The thought was to have the solid training rounds bust through walls and such so the HE could be effective. [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-19-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holdit: Numbers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If it was simply numbers, the Allies in the west should never have done much as their numbers hardly matched that of Russia.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Can you find any post where the people you keep accusing of being Germanophiles claimed that german tanks were invincible, as you stated? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course not if we over-look the tungsten thread, the cries of tungsten in this thread, that monster optics, i.e. Germans should never miss, thread and on and on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: This tells it all. Thankyou cavscout! If the allied tank can stand up to the german floktale tank then why the hell are the points NOT even? If this "german supiority in tanks" is a myth, then what the freakin hell is the germans out gunned 50% in points to represent that? If allied tanks are just as good as axis one's why are the points uneven??? Tell me this with a logical answer and I will drop this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ahem... I said the German tanks weren't invincible. The Germans, for the most part, had better tanks than the Allies. You should not let your "Wehrmact penis envy" cloud your reasoning. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: You will have to forgive some people, like Cav here. They grew up being told that everything American is vastly superior to everything else, and that all people who are not just like them are inferior. So he has trouble accepting that anyone other than the US could produce anything other than garbage. America #1!!, right? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can you find any posts where I have advocated making Shermans, or other Allied vehicles, equal or more powerful than German ones? Besides, the Allies were superior in something as they won the war.

Jeff Heidman really ment to say, "You will have to forgive some people, like Cav here. They grew up being told that the Americans, with the Allies, won the war." [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-18-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Who said they were A-OK? Oh, that was you creating another strawman. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have seen no other complaint other than in combined arms QB MEs and only in relation to the German armor pool points. Are you now arguing for an entire revamp of all point pools for all types of the QB MEs? 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]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Polar: The "unfair" advantage actually translates to "the playing field is even". It's funny... if you take the two big tanks, the Pershing and the KT, they cost essentially the same... but even with the Pershing (and Super Pershing) a KT will win in a head to head duel... so it still comes down to tactics with the Pershing. I think the undelying problem here is that that a lowly Easy-Eight can now take out a KT with something other than a lucky hit. The horror.... the horror..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You'll have to forgive some people. They grew with the folktales that German panzers were invincible to Allied tanks. It is sometimes difficult to seperate "story telling" from non-fiction. 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 01-18-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: This is quote is by Mace and was entered in the thread entitled "Fed Up With UberTank Battles!" I just thought that this is very relevent to the argument that allied armor are at an advantage in combined arms meeting engagments. With added Tungsten availability the allied already has an advantage in armor, thus adding more points to allied armor gives it more so of an advantage. I posted this in that thread: This is exactly why the armor point reduction in combined arms meeting engagments should be reversed back to its previous state. It is quite obvious to me that with Tungsten the advantage is swayed back to the allies, thus giving the allies more (50%) armor points only results to an even greater advantage in armor on the battlefield. I don't think it take much to see the obvious in this thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If there is a problem with Tungsten use, availability or performance shouldn't that be fixed (If there is a problem)? If Tungsten has given the Allies and "unfair" advantage, then the Allies would still have a "unfair" advantage in a battle even if both sides had equal armor points.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: Isn't CavScout the same guy who said that D-Day could have been launched from the East coast of the USA?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL.... landings in Africa were.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: I can't believe you are this plain stupid. Don't you get we are talking about QB ME Combined ARMS?!!! People already think the armored battles are fair but the Combined Arms are not! THAT is the point! Please stay with it! Ahhhhhhh! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If armor force mix is "fair" then why not play it? Of course, one wonders how it can be "fair" using your method of thinking as the Germans get a bonus point pool for buying infantry. How is this fair for the Allies? I guess in your mind, "fair" is having the Germans with equal or greater pool points in a catagory. Deutschland gewinnt immer! Right? 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]