Panther131

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I say, need cheese with that "whine"? Anyone who demands equal armor points but also refuse to play armor forces that offer that is either a fool or just arguing for the sake of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> uhhhhyuuuyuuu. ::shakes head::: who said anything about refusal to play an all armored battle? Cavscout Cavscout Cavscout. You are making a mockary of this cav. hehe. Just a fool? We are or at least I am not arguing for arguing sake...I would beg to differ on that. There is a huge, I mean huge difference between an armored battle and a combined arms battle. I know you recognize this. It shouldnt be that if I want even points in armor, I have to play an all armored battle. It just should not be like this. I mean, most people play combined arms as it is...ladders are mostly combined arms...I like a mix of units...combined arms...most people I know like a mix of units...Now for the last time, we are arguing for the unbalanced armor in combined arms to be fixed abit. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS!!?? I THINK IT IS CLEAR. I would say that with your insensible comment about "just play an armored battle and it will fix it" comment...well...nevermind.

I have tried to make this argument JAZZA, but the argumenters on the otherside, think that the problem is fixed by playing an all armored battle. hehe...I mean the problem with that is it will be more then a rough time to find somebody to accept that condition. 1000 point battle, with 1000 points of armor available to the germans and 300 available to the allied. Ah...uh..no way, it aint going to happen. At the same time, it just wouldnt be that much fun as the germans with ath kind of armored advantage. I disagree with BTS and have done so on this since the change. I remember speaking with somone in an early tcp/ip game, and during the game we chatted about german and allied armor. It was his opinion that the germans get shafted, and that was before the improved use of tungsten and the lowered armor points in combined arms Me's. I remember him cringing at the thought of the improved tungsten that was then being talked about. At first I was surprised at his view, but soon afterwords realized that he was right. BTS says that the germans have a big advantage in the vehicle department . While this is true, the balance of tanks has gone ascew. (as referenced by Jeff H, and Jeff). The problem becomes, what can a 7.5cm gunned halftrack really do with a few rounds of hollow charge with its delicate armor up against easy 8's and Jumbo's? Not too much if you ask me. I just dont completely get it though. I mean if this is the case BTS, why not do this type of handicaping of armor and vehicle's in all of the type of games? I mean if thats how it was historicaly, which seems to be part of the reason the move was made, why not for all of the catagories...ME, Attack, Probe...etc.

Well this certainly is'nt one of your classes Slap No seriously, I think it is important. I think that enough has been said already specificaly by jshandorf for considered change.

I dont quite understand the anti-ubertank thing all that well. I mean they are in the game arent they? I mean BTS put them in there to be used right? If your sick of them, use the FIONN rule(s) or play mechs or infantry only. Funny thing is and most probably wont believe me (my screen name) but I dont play with the panthers and tigers much. I played 1 KT once, a lone Tiger twice, 2 tigers in one pbem and no panthers in my multiplayer games so far. Thats 4 battles with ubertanks in about 20 or so multi-play games.

If BTS would comment then maybe it could be cleared up for both sides of the argument...Not that BTS has to comment. It would be nice to hear where they stand. Thats all.

I dont think to many players agree to that condition. [This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-17-2001).]

Cav: Just for the record my friend, we are talking about combined arms QB ME's. Damn it where's BTS!

Interesting Simon. Interesting. But seriously, BTS went through the trouble to allocate the points in combined arms ME's and in alot of people's minds its not really fair. There have been some sound arguments on both sides, and from what I heard there will be a 1.1.1 but maybe I just heard hogwash. (who knows?) Anyway, points have been made. I hope BTS will comment on this even if it goes into the catacombs of the forum. BTS?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Drug research is a different matter. Some of the best research done is there, and then it gets into the hands of people who do not understand how that research is conducted, and things go to hell. I would have to read the evidence on tryptopaphane to tell for sure. I do know that in cannibus's case the research is done and is ignored. It is indeed no more harmful than ciggarettes (except you should not operate an automobile) and have many nondrug uses, but it is rejected not by scientists but by politicians based on everything but well done science.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thats exactly my point Slap. And what we deal with on a large basis is the government/politicians telling us things that are untruths. (not all the time but alot certainly alot of it) Yes, and this goes back to the government lieing to the people. (for reasons unknown), Yet there are reasons. Motives...yes. Money. It all comes down to money. I do not know much about politics or the health industry, but it does not take much to piece that together. By the way...Way off topic but out of serious curiousity, how is Magic Johnson is such good health after getting HIV? I know that with the HIV virus it is possible to live a healthy life for a number of years, but how long is this possible? I know that people can go 10 or 15 years with the virus (maybe more) but I mean Magic is or seems in perfect shape. What is he doing that others are not? What is the secret? [This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-17-2001).]

Ok... you obviously know alot more about history in general then I do. You are probably right. But, why does the U.S. hold documents away from public eye to consume? I know I am not the brightest bulb around, but there is alot of controversy surrounding it. Keeping documents away from the public tells me that the U.S. is keeping them away for a reason. Maybe there is information that the the U.S. believes that the public is not ready to accept. Here is another example...an I truly believe this. The amino acid Tryptophane which acts as a mood enhancer or anti depressent has been banned for use in th U.S. The reason was that it was found that Tryptophane caused a few unfortunate deaths. However further research showed that these few deaths were caused by a particular bad batch made by a certain drug company not tryptophane itself. However, tryptopaphane continues to be banned in the U.S. even with its proven positive results. This, while in european countries, it is used with success. I don't know the full details of this, but it is just one example of not being so by the book and final authority written paradigm. (as we all know, paradigms do shift however with time) Its kind of like how in european countries alcohol can be purchased by children, and in thier society there does not seem to be an alcohol or substance problem like we see in the U.S. But if you asked the U.S. (just look at our policy on cannibus) they would vehmently throw all these "facts"(paranioa? control?) at you saying that all of these reason's are why we should not allow it. I mean, for krist sake, cannibus could be used for so many great things including the possibility of saving our wild life (Trees) by using the small weed to produce paper products. But according to the U.S. this wont happen becouse appantly they have become the final authority. I dont know all I am saying is take it with a grain of salt I suppose. There is just alot more going on then meets the eye ya know

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>With historic evidence, the written word is really considered true unless it gets impeached. A good researcher looks at some works, like the government work in question, and will immediately think that social construction type bias is a possible grounds for impeachment, but that does not mean it is no good. Even from deepest darkest communist Russian in the top of communism documents were produced that were remarkably candid and useful. Here a big grain of salt is needed, but it may turn out the document is good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right. Except for "With historic evidence, the written word is really considered true unless it gets impeached." Thats exactly where I have to disagree. Mainly becouse, not all "written words" are true. And I wouldnt believe it just becouse its a written word. (no pun intended) For instance and I think this is a good example, John F. Kennedy's Assasination. What I believe like most americans is that he was shot by more then one person. IIRC, that theory was not proven with sucess in the courts, despite making complete sense to most average americans. The written word of this according to the U.S. is that he was shot with one rifle, one man, from the depository building. Which really is impossible within 3 seconds wgat the total time of 3 accurate shots were fired that horrible morning. This is officialy OT now [This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-17-2001).]

Thats what I was trying to say to you Slap. Must take things with a grain of salt. As for your points... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1) Why would they lie (a powerful arguement) 2) Other later research follows their reasoning and accepts it (ie. Patton at Bay, Keegan, Ambrose etc. -- taking into account that the final one is more general and often less accurate himself). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Point 1...I dont know exactly. But with a lot of U.S. slanted information (trying to make the U.S. look good) it seems that it is hard to differentiant sometimes. It would be hard for me to make any argument with you, with my lack of knowledge and research on this. But thanks for the information. [This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-17-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>War Against Germany, Europe and Adjacent Areas, a 1951 government printing office document, claims that Allied and German manpower strengths are even through (more or less, the mention is in the narrative) Jan. 1945 but that US forces included fewer Infantry per thousand men in the ground forces, the balance going to more men in tanks, artillery, tank destroyer, medical, and support positions, and that the US (note it did not say Allied here) suffered from a "lack of infantry formations and replacements" compared to the German's "amazing ability to keep fielding new infantry units as well as replace losses in established units".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just as a word of caution on where infromation comes from. 1951 and "from the government" lends itself to be a bit pro allied just to let you know. Though again, it could be true. I mean, guys like, and I cannot remember his name at this moment, but the guy in charge of german arms production, was tried becouse the allies thought he should be punished for having great sufficientcy in german arms production and helping the germans win the war.

Again Slap, I am not arguing tactics. I am simply saying that if you want an evened combined arms game in a ME it just isnt possible. Again, I am not talking tactics here. I believe, that if the combined arms were allocated evenly on both sides then it would be strictly up to the player to choose how advanced he employs his tactics. If what you are saying is true, which it seems, (I am not that great of a commander just yet) then greater tactical use will win everyday anyway. Even if the german side is handicaped in armor points. To me, in many games, I see allied tank superiority in numbers which in turn if used right can rule a battlefield. What I am saying is forget about tactic use. If greater tactic use is superior, why is there an edge in armor for the allied?

woops, I thought you said unrealsitic! My bad. Need to do more careful reading! [This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-17-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Along vaguely similar lines, how about including captured vehicles, which were commonly used by the Germans, at least? It wouldn't just be realistic, it would also be fun to combat each other with the same tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, that was realistic, howver I dont know how often that was employed. I know dor sure that during the battle of Kursk, the germans manned a bunch of captured T-34's into battle, though I dont know how many. I think it would be neat to at least have this as a possibility in a canned scenario, such as a reanactment of the Battle of Kursk. (boy what a battle that will be) I dont see this as a QB option really, but as an option for scenario and operations as this could add to a more historical though rare occurance. Oh what fun to see T-34's and Panthers and Tigers side by side in a battle at Kursk! Though, I do not know if the russians used german armor.

I disagree with your assesment slap. And here is why: I dont think I should have to request that an allied player "allow" me to play an armored alotment of force. I think, firstly that most if not all players would not agree to this anyway. Being that, I most likely have a heavy advantage. Ok...here is the thing: We are talking about a QB ME and its point allocation! Not about armor vs combined arms different tactics or any other argument that has been brought up! What you are essentialy saying is that nothing is going to change so play a armor vs combined arms game and get over it. I could always play a combined arms vs armor if a player agreed to that. But that does not change the fact that I will never be able to play an evened armor QB ME in combined arms. This is the argument! Not the other way around! Also, I would like to mention that I like ME QB combined arms, as they are probably the most widely used engagment in a QB. The QB set is also defaulted that way, and I know alot of people just use that to set up a quick game. But this is besides th point. How am I able to set up an even COMBINED ARMS battle? It is impossible. That is unless you start to talk about different tactics and such. But that is just sidestepping the the issue: It is not possible to go tank points to tank points ....ect. And also, tactics should be a choice in a QB. Not forced. I mean gee, I want to use a more infantry styled tactic...Oh darn!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, accroding to CavScout, if you want to play an armor force select armor NOT a combined arms force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is exactly the point! Why should anyone who want to play with a fair amount of german armor have to play a an armored battle only game? This is ridiculous! I dont understand this logic! Your sayin "too bad, too bad just play an armored battle to see even armored points!" This is so elementary!

I have a suggestion for CM2. This came to me last night. Is there a chance of having knocked out or abandoned vehicles or armor on the battlefield prior to the engagment? My idea is that especially for canned scenario's this could be a great addition. Not so much for QB's but for historical and ahistorical scenarios alike, it would ad to some of the realism to have abandoned armor and vehicles be seen on the battlefield. For instance, a scenario where the russians are advancing through germany and there are a few dead abandoned stugIII's or a panther abandoned on the side of the road or in the city. I think this would be neat. And would add to realism. My question is and ecuse my laziness for no search, will there be the german afv Brummbar? This vehicle seems like a real exciting addition, though I have no idea how many were actually made.

I completley agree with jshandorf here. Aint that a hoot Ok...lets review this quite simply: If one chooses the allies, they get to use more armor and less infantry. If one chooses axis, one gets less armor and more infantry. Now before I go into it any further, I would like to say that if one chooses to play allied he is forced to use a more armor centric pool then infantry becouse the points are set up that way. This in turn makes the allied play a more armored tactical approach. There is no way around this. It the way it is set up Now If I choose axis, I am forced to not by as many tanks but am allowed to have more infantry. So as an axis player I am forced to use certain tactics to win. Do you see were this is going. You cant choose one side and play to your liking becouse to the way the points are allocated. So what happens is (according to cavscout ) is if you want to play a more armored QB ME play as allied. If you want to play a more infantry centric QB ME play as axis. Geee. Sighn me up Now to me, this does not give the same oppertunities to both sides and is unfair. Why should I be forced to play a with a different style becouse the side I pick is set up that way in points, in the same battle?

"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.

Ok... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Are you saying that the Allied Sherman was "equal" to the Panther and that a balanced game would have equal number on both sides?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. I never suggested this. We all know a Panther is superior to the sherman. However, I am not meaning just shermans here. As there are Jumbos and TD's that have powerful tungsten rounds. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Yes, as the points are made up elsewhere. Are you saying the Germans are "to powerful" because they have more infantry points than Allies now?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes but dont allied squads have 12 troops to axis 8 or 9? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Probably about as well as most Shermans against the German tanks!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, (I like your humor BTW ), I am talking about jumbos as well. Surely the Jumbo is a formidable opponent to the Panther. (I may be wrong though I havnt done any real tests). What about Pershings and S. Purshings? They stand up mightily to tigers and KTigers. In fact it could be argued that with tungsten rounds the mighty pershing was better then a Tiger. (not sure about the Ktiger, but that 300mm penetration tungsten is deadly). [This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-16-2001).]

I ask a simple question, and I am riddiculed.

So what Jeff...you are the one who started with this type of attitude. Take a look at yourself bub.

What your problem f--face? It said he submitted the scenario...not that it was available...and by the way it wasnt up at the time it was first posted. So STFU. Damn I am so pissed at you "smart asses'" Thats the one thing that ceases to die on this forum. Jackoff. F--- you as----- [This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-16-2001).]