Jump to content

BlackVoid

Members
  • Posts

    161
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BlackVoid

  1. My ideas:

    1. In general the attacker should get +10%

    2. In light trees the attacker should get +20%

    3. On open terrain the attacker should get +30%

    I am going to test these settings against the AI in all infantry (or maybe mech) battles.

    No tanks, because then it will boild down to who wins the tank battle. Sometimes this is too easy against the AI.

  2. In CMBO, the attacker had a distinct advantage, it was very hard to win as a defender against a competent opponent.

    In CMBB it seems to be the other way round, the defender has the advantage. The game system has changed a lot, but the point ratios has stayed the same.

    BTS: Are there any plans to review the point balance?

    Maybe it is just my bad tactics, but I see it happening to everyone.

    Of course it depends largely on the terrain as well, and moderate/heavy trees seem to get a better balance. But how would you balance a game in light trees or open terrain?

    Ideas welcome.

  3. I have a problem with spotting infantry firing at my troops.

    Yesterday I had 2 enemy Maxim machineguns firing at my infantry. One of my platoons was 200m away, the machinegun was in open ground on a hill. I had veteran and even crack units looking at that hill farther away.

    After 10 rounds of firing I still only got a sound contact on the machinegun. Of course I suspected it to be in a nearby patch of woods, so I kept area firing at the woods to no effect.

    Is it now better to put defending infantry in the open to deceive your enemy? Who cares about cover if your enemy wont be able to see you anyway?

  4. Very impressive.

    I have only one concern:

    The text says that winter quick battles will have a high chance to have snow on the ground if set in the northern and finnish region.

    Why just northern and finnish?!?

    From everything I read, I get the impression that from november to march, it was freezing cold in Russia! In the south as well. Eg: Stalingrad.

    I also have a book from a hungarian war veteran, and his diary at the Don (southern region), says somethink like this:

    January 3rd, 1943 : The weather is is a bit milder today, the temperature is -29C.

    !!!!!

    The ground should be snowy on all fronts during the whole winter and have a high chance to have snow in all areas in March and Nov.

    Please BTS!

    BTW this is an amazing game! I love it!

  5. This game craves for accurate simulation of WW2 combat and it succeeds brilliantly.

    BUT, we cannot have snow in the ground in winter QBs, unless the snow is falling, or there is a blizzard.

    This is VERY UNREALISTIC, given that on the eastern front, there was snow on the ground from at least November to March.

    I have tried to save a snowy map created with the editor, but when I load it, the ground is GREEN.

    Please BTS, include a terrain option or make the ground snow covered for winter battles!!!

    Posters, I kindly request that you post here, so the thread is noticed.

    Thank You

  6. People talk about using good tactics against a not-so well used Stug.

    Why do you assume that the Axis player does not know how to play it?

    If he keeps it far, with only the front exposed, covered by guns and infantry, it is just near impossible to kill it.

    Well, anyway tonight I will try something different. I will buy tons of cheap 45mm soviet tanks and rush it.

    Just like the good ol', ultra-realistic Hellcat rush.

    Regarding the Stug being useless in some situations (Eg: heavy forest, town), it is true. But everyone knows this and people will not buy them in these situations. Yes, I could play random map/weather, but then I could just flip a coin instead of playing the game.

    In QBs most people look for a map and settings where both sides have a chance. So rarely will see attacks on large open steppes, which may have been the case in real life a lot. In those situations though, those gamey soviets often used a force 5-10 times greater than the enemy.

    I was bringing up CMBO so many times, because I quite new to CMBB and do not want to write something stupid, but the point problem has carried over.

    And a Tiger in CMBO can be killed by any 76mm gun, not just the Jumbo. Just test 2 regular 76mm Sherman against the Tiger, if the Tiger is facing just 45 degrees away from them.

    I still hold to my opinion, that points cost should be changed according to player input. It was badly needed for CMBO and badly needed here.

  7. This has been pointed out by someone on the Stug thread, but here it goes again.

    Human judgement and experience is better than some kind of calculator. Look at what people buy/avoid in QBs and you will see what stuff is worth. Glaringly obvious price errors surface this way.

    In my mind if there is something that noone ever buys, then that stuff is too expensive (relative to its capability in the game).

    On the other hand, if something is present in every or every other battle, then that thing is too cheap.

    CMBO examples:

    Way too cheap: Hetzer, PzIV/70, Churchill, Puppchen

    Way too expensive: Tiger, Jagdtiger, Stug (just to mention a few)

    You can see that the list is not too long, so I think yes, it can be corrected.

    QBs and purchase points should be about balance. This has nothing to do with being historical. If I want to be historical I play a scenario. If I want a challenge of defeating another human I look for a QB. If I want a historical QB, I switch on rarity --> this of course can cause imbalance, but I accept this. But in non-rarity QBs the price should reflect only capability. When prices are way off, then people will realize it soon enough.

    To summarize: human judgement and experience will tell you what is over and under priced.

  8. Thanks Larsen, you have a point there.

    If price is not changed between years....

    I guess I just have to get back to computer purchase and/or try variable rarity.

    Otherwise it is just so predictable.

    Still, survivability is an issue that should be considered in the point system. Do not have a good example for CMBB, but the Tiger in CMBO is a classic example. In QBs it was absolutely not purchased by anyone because it was useless.

  9. One thing is missing from your almighty point calculator.

    Survivability of the equipment!!!

    The Stug IIIf has excellent survivability in 42.

    The T34 has crappy survivability in 42.

    What does this mean? It means that your T34 will be dead and the Stug will live. A dead T34 wont do you much good.

    The same situation was true for the Tiger in CMBB. Perharps wrongly, its survivability was crap. A big slow target. Noone buyed them, because they were bloody expensive for their use!!!!

    Noone buyed Stugs in CMBO either. Why? Because it could be killed way too easily by any allied tank.

    BTS please look into what people buy in quick battles and price stuff accordingly. Uber-equipment in a given year should not be cheap!!!

    Also useless stuff should not be expensive. :eek:

  10. As we all know, purchase points matter the most in QBs, where it should be the points that balance out gameplay. Equipment should be priced according to usability and survivability.

    Yet, again the points are way off.

    Lets compare 2 tanks, that have about the same price.

    1942 T34 and 1942 StugIIIF

    The latter is a bit cheaper. Yet, it cannot be killed by the T34. A properly used Stug will always win. Even if you take a more expensive KV, you still have no chance against the Stug. The Stug is uber and priced at a mere 100 point is downright ridiculous.

    There is no allied armor that can stand up to the Stug, yet the Stug is priced cheaply and is common. Look someplace else for play balance....

    CMBO had the same problem with cheap and deadly Churchills, expensive and utterly useless Tigers.

    This is seriously disappointing and makes human purchase QBs a no-go for me. The point system should balance the game and not totally imbalance it.

    BTS fix this!!!

×
×
  • Create New...