Multiplayer balance

[Lacroix]

i v been playing with brother for some time now and he complains that US is technologically inferior to germany in CM:BN (vanila). he argues that US should have same funds as germany when Defending against germans.

1.is that true or utter nonsense? i am not very experienced in the game or more precisely in the balance thing

2.any advices on force multiplier or something similar?

3.any known balance issues?

[Baneman]

Re. (3)

There's no such thing as "balance". The game strives to accurately represent the equipment used by the different combatants.

In an Attack/Defend Quick Battle, the Attacker will always get more points to spend than the Defender.

Use of real life tactics will overcome many of the perceived "disadvantages" eg. American Sherman tanks flanking Panthers. Generally the points allocation in QB's will allow you to buy more Shermans than the Germans can buy Panthers, making it easier to achieve this sort of real world effect.

That's how they did it then and it works in game as well.

[slysniper]

You do know you can play German on German in the game don't you, That takes away that issue anyway.

[A Canadian Cat]

You do know you can play German on German in the game don't you, That takes away that issue anyway.

Yep, I suspect that this will reveal the "real" issue with balance in Attack Quick Battles: that the points spread is too big for a defender to have much chance.

Try a Probe QB instead - I have found that leads to a more "balanced" game.

[womble]

Yep, I suspect that this will reveal the "real" issue with balance in Attack Quick Battles: that the points spread is too big for a defender to have much chance.

Try a Probe QB instead - I have found that leads to a more "balanced" game.

Or try an Assault, but have a small attacker setup area and allow first turn preplanned bombardments by the defender...

[The Steppenwulf]

Without the application of some armour house rules, QB battles can be one-sided affairs; should, for example, the German player select an armoured force of Tigers then the US player may well be unaware of the quality of armour he might expect to face without some rule parameters.

In this case, I'd recommend using Fionn's house rules such as the 'short 75 rule' which will alleviate such a potential problem:-

http://combatmission.wikia.com/wiki/House_Rules

[Baneman]

Hmm, I've never found Tigers ( or anything else for that matter ) to be super overpowering.

The first time I took one in a QB it got one shot off before receiving a "gun hit". Bloody expensive pillbox !

[womble]

Turn the tables. If he doesn't like being whomped on the defense as the Amis, let him attack, or defend as the Jerries.

If you're playing QBs with no rules then the Amis should stuff their armour forces with 76s and 105s and use them for their intended purposes (killing tanks and blowing up soft stuff, respectively). 76mm can deal with Tigers, and Tigers are expensive, whereas M10s are pretty cheap, and just as well protected against 88mm or 75/L70 as a Sherman is.

Tech advantage is reflected, largely, in purchase points. At least as well as it can be generally quantified when the conditions of use are so varied. As Ian says, Assault and Attack do seem to hand the attacker an overwhelming number of points.