Polar

Mmmmmm.... fantasy CM setting.... That would certainly end the "they aren't as/are too powerful" discussions. How would they know??? Guess that is why I draw fantasy pictures as a hobby. Who is going to tell me how my subjects are supposed to look? http://www.geocities.com/jryan_99 Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz [This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-20-2001).]

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, maybe it never dawned on you, but German and Allied units are different. We aren't even sure whether point values are relevant between the two sides (ie. Is a 120 pt German unit twice as effective as a 60 pt U.S. unit? Or is it just twice as effective as a 60 pt. German unit...) Maybe those who are gnashing their teeth over the Tungsten and the perceived handicap from Armor points should look at it this way... 1) For this example only, I'll conceed that the Germans are handicapped by the Armor point change 2) Historically, the Germans WERE handicapped. 3) BTS wants to make CM more historical. So mathematically, and logically, 1+2=3. Those who want to play Germany, be it exclusively, for one game, or on a coin toss, should realize that they are stepping into the shoes of a German officer "Beyond Normandy" where, most historians will tell you, the fate of the war was a forgone conclusion. Now, point of view #2... where there is no handicap, only the perception of a handicap: If you look soley at what a German player has to choose from under "Armor", and what the Allies have to chose from under "Armor"... there WERE numerically fewer "Armor" units for Germany to chose from (both in "brand name" and physically countable armor units). So, Germany more often than not, had less "Armor". So accept the role as you now percieve it... as an uphill battle where your cunning as a General is all that you have between you and humiliating defeat. THAT is historical. If you want Starcraft, play starcraft. If you want post Overlord Germany, expect some historical handcuffing... as you percieve it. Most good players will realize that a German player has enough at his disposal to win an ME he plays. A bad craftsmen blames his tools. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz [This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-19-2001).]

It's amazing how several tons of rubble falling on a gun barrel, MG will foul the ballistics. Why is it that if the tank can't move from under the rubble, and can't see through the rubble to shoot anything, and the tank crew can't lift the hatch that has tons of rubble on top of it that BTS counts it as "out of action"!!! That's BS!!! And why can't I use half tracks in a tug-boat fashion to aim my hetzer that is stuck in the mud?!?!?!?! This blows. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 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..... Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

<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> So you think that having MORE german tanks will help given the tungsten advantage? Here is a hint... tungsten isn't nearly as effective versus infantry. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Another red herring. What if I want a combined arms battle with 30% armor and 70% infantry playing as the Germans? Just like we could do prior to 1.1? How is forcing the German player to take a predominantly armored force MORE historical? Jeff Heidman <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, the whole is a conversation is a red herring. How was pre 1.1 any more "accurate". Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: Cav, I think everyone here see who the real fool is and that is you. Only a fool would continue to cling to flimsy arguments and remarks you have made. You do nothing but try and piss people off by not seeing the obvious and sensible. I am not sure what your problems is, maybe you get off on this kind of stuff, and to that you are a very sad person indeed. Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually... I think most people are just getting pissed off because there is a solution present that they aren't willing to use. It's like when users at my job complain that the printer 10 feet from there desk doesn't pirint letterhead, forcing them to walk an additional 5 feet to the one that does. I wish more people would take the extra 10 seconds to remedy their perceived problems as opposed to burdening anyone who will listen with their complaints. If you want want a field battle where the forces match what BTS believes to be as accurate diversity of units, everyone take combined arms. If you want a straight up shoot out, both take armor battle and set purchase limits to the lowest of the two sides. If you want an Armor column (either side) hitting entrenched infantry, give the attacker Armor, and the defense combined arms. All it takes is a little hand shaking between the two sides before it starts... or is that too much to ask of you? Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

Yes Cav... you are "Think headed"... how dare you! When will the rest of you learn that you can have a "combined arms" battle without it saying "combined arms" at the top of the QB screen? Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CavScout said: Good luck! Just remember you'll need infantry!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why are you misleading the poor guy Cav??? It's obvious from the arguments of people here that wasting ANY money on infantry would unbalance the game in favor of the guy that spent his money on armor. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

I think I can take a stab at it... GB is essentially right, but the reason the don't become instant cover is because the units pathfinding map is probably established before the game ever starts. This saves processor because otherwise the PC would have to dynamically evaluate cover for every unit, every turn. So we'd have a load of people here whining about how there troops didn't take cover behind the broken tank instead of the broken down shack... yadda yadda yadda... when the answer is, the AI can't be programmed to see the tank as cover because that tank was not there as cover when the pathfinding map was drawn, so it will never use it. They don't use live tanks as cover as it is, if I am not mistaken. Less headache to remove them all but graphically and take the "sorry, deal with it" approach. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz [This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-18-2001).]

LOL!!! But you guys aren't serious... right? Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think a huge poiint you are missing is this... the guy who spend most of his 1000 on armor is going to die a very quick death... save for the occaissional mad rush by tank crews. I think some people need to learn that spending more points on infantry than armor is a "necessary evil" if you ever want to beat someone with half a brain. Like I said before, if I were to give JoeAverage GermanArmorLover 1000 points to spend and he went out and baught 3 Regular KTs, I could counter all 1000 points he spent with three veteran PIAT troops and a few diversionary rifle squads. Of course, the guys who would be spending 1000 points on KTs are the same who would be demanding a flat, dry, clear map with no trees and lots of paved roads. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

You guys need to wake up... a real conversation has just shot past you in total posts! Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: Good points, Polar. The only thing I might add is that in the context of the game, losing that damaged tank will cost you points! All Real Life considerations aside, I'd rather keep the tank alive (and the points that go with it) than lose it for no gain. Glad to see that you're not taking my debating points personally. Since this forum is for DEBATING CM issues, I'm not sure why some people see an argument as threatening (not directing this at anyone in particular...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, MT... you don't find the withdrawl of your tank to the detriment of your infantry, for the sole reason of saving some abstract win points, to be gamey? I can see Patton now... "Damn the infantry!!!! Withdraw that damaged Jumbo! That could be the difference between a major and marginal victory!" Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

Heheh... I do that too. I once had a REALLY bad day at work and didn't even feel like moving units. So I took a "firing range" map that I made the day before and stuffed 30 KTs and 30 Super Pershings on it (none of them could move because of the terrain) and let them duke it out in a huge 1800's style duel. Click Go!... watch the Carnage... Click Go!... watch the carnage... I'm sick I tell ya! Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

It was a one in a million. I was a little POed that I didn't get a chance to see the remnance of the force actually make visual contact when it surendered. NOt only did I somehow devine the perfect spot for my artillery, but I also somehow devined that the forces that, by all rights, I didn't know were there had surrendered. I spit diet coke through my nose when I saw the surrender screen pop up. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the choice of Armor Battle only remove the force restrictions? I thought you could still by troops in Armor battles. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

Patience, patience... [This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-17-2001).]

Look people... I think one VERY important point is being missed here. Do the following (I appologize if this looks familiar at the start... but follow me): 1) Set up an ME, U.S. plays Combined arms, Germans play Armor 2) German player then just follows the U.S. "limitations" (only 300 pts. of armor).... IT IS THE SAME THING!!!!!! It's not like you can't replicate what was being done prior to the patch... you just go about it a different way. Can anyone come up with a statement from BTS that the Combined Arms selection tool is soley for play balancing? I was never aware that CA was meant for balance at all... it supposed to lend to more accurately distributed units on both sides. Whether or not that has meaning with the inclusion of rare vehicles is a completely different issue. One question I do have... when that 17 point PIAT takes out the 300 point KT, will that satisfy "play balance"? Because the guy playing the British won't jump to a surrender if that KT takes out his 17 pt PIAT. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

I won a mission in 6 turns once, and never saw a single enemy tank. I was trying to deny the Germans an approach to a town I was holding by using my 155 arty and 4.5 inch rockets to plaster the easiest approach. My salvos started dropping in turn 3, and 3 turns later it was all over. I never did see what was on the receiving end of those barages... I just assume that the Germans got caught right in the middle of the barage and nobody made it out alive. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: Just figured out this quote feature. Nice touch! Anyway, nobody is demanding that ANY decisions be removed from the gamer. Why did you ever think this? Someone simply asked if using a damaged tank in a tank battle is realistic. Some of us responded that IN OUR OPINIONS, it was best to beat feet to cover rather than lose the tank altogether. Nowhere in there do I see someone saying "You MUST move your tanks - and while you're at it, BTS, recode this into the game!" Sheesh! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed MT... rarely does anyone with you opinion put it quite the level of dignified uncertainty as you do. But what is the point of saving the tank if you lose the battle? It really is a matter of importance. There are infinite numbers of grey areas that would contribute to the descision to fight to the last man, or committ armor that isn't 100% field ready... but CM doesn't model any of that. SO in absence of a good reason not to, there is no good reason not to. Maybe if CM adds a campaign mode where you can deduce that damaged tanks aren't needed given the degree of importance... or even the ability to supply/repair that tank, we should discuss the gameness of risking a tank in an attemp to save a few infantry squads... but we don't have that. If the battle was important, the tank would have been used. You decide how important it is for your forces to win and play accordingly. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

Also... when someone masters the skill of commanding infantry, they care much less about the number of tanks on the other side of the map. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: Unless of course, one were to claim that the Germans in general had more infantry And I am not so sure about that... Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well... if you were to go back it time and use the BTS number values to evaluate combat effectivesness.. and then try and pick untits that best represent availability on both sides, then yes, the Germans would have more infantry. (*shew!!*) Or, to put it more simply.. the ratio or armor to men was less for the Germans than it was for the Allies... probably because the US built their tanks primarily for troop support (right or wrong) and Germans made tanks that were cool "mine's bigger" tank killers. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Edit - what's the point? You obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder about your desire to win at all cost instead of attempting historical play, so I should really stop feeding your inferiority complex. Have a nice day.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Attempting historical play"? What kind of BS is that? You know next to jack squat about what was and wasn't done in any given pitched battle in the war. This is along the lines of all other "historical accuracey" argument... first sign of trouble, you should run. I have no interest in "playing historically" if by that you mean I need to bow to your whim on what you think I should do with my troops... esspecially those that still have value on the battlefield. Again, your personal attacks are showing your inflexibility in these matters. Nothing short of flying tanks and martian ray guns are "ahistorical" or "gamey". Wild sacrifices for miniscule objectives, incredible chance, and outrageous fortunes were all part of WW II on all fronts. THe push to "play more historical" and define "gameyness" is all just an attemp to remove chance and play out only the more mundane episodes in the war. I'm sure there would be cries of gameyness if I sent a single soldier up a hill to silence a fortified German possition... esspecially if he succeeded. But it happened. This only bothers me because of previous threads where people were discussing their lists of people they wouldn't play because they use such-and-such tactics in a battle. Now it's geting to the point where players with combat fit tanks feel the need to come here and ask if its ok to use them. It's not like we're talking about a mobile artillery piece here... there are pleanty of situations (this sounds like one of them) that it is more beneficial for a tank minus it's main gun to stay in and support the troops... depending on the battle, the tank is probably just as (or more) likely to get sniped in retreat as it is to stay in and support the infantry. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

<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