Quick Battles - where did all the armor go???

[Gunsmithcat]

I often play quick battles, and had a good feel for the frequencies of getting armor. I have noticed, and checked over and over, that the quick battles generated with the new patch 1.1b16 are not putting armor on the field much. Instead, loads of infantry and support. I know the TO&E may have been tweaked, but this is drastic. Anyone else think this seems extreme? I miss tanks...I really do...and I prefer random instead of purchased : (

[LuckyStrike]

I agree. I have been playing a lot of computer-chooses-units combined-arms QBs, and it seems that armor purchases are down. To check this, I set up 5 1000 point Combined Arms games, allied attacker (ie allies have 1500 points). All other QB values default.

Vehicle/Armor purchases by the computer for the allies over the 5 games were:

1. Humber SC, 2 MMG carrier

2. M3 Halftrack

3. M4A1(76), M10TD

4. None

5. 2 M8 Greyhound, 1 M5 Stuart

Then 5 2000 point games (ie allies have 3000 points), purchases were:

1. 2 M3A1 Halftracks

2. Sherman V, Churchill Crocodile

3. 4 Churchill VII, 2 White Scout Car

4. 2 M4A3 Sherman

5. 4 MMG Carriers

Looking at the German picks in another 5 2000 point games, allied attacker, the computer chose:

1. Panzer IVG

2. 2 Panzer IVJ

3. Panzer IVJ, 2 Sdkfz 251/1 Halftrack

4. Hetzer

5. Hetzer, Stuh42, 251/1 Halftrack, 250/1 H/t

OK so this is hardly a big sample, but this doesn't look right to me, it looks way light compared to what 1.05 would have chosen.

Have any others noticed this? Please run some checks and have a look at this.

Cheers,

Lee

[Cueball]

I've noticed the same thing. I like playing 1250 point combined arms quick battles, and I'm lucky if I get one tank.

[This message has been edited by Cueball (edited 12-04-2000).]

[GriffinCheng+]

The problem seems to be more serve in 1.1b6 than the original 1.05. In a 700-pt-ME-QB, German has 1 motar ht where the US have only 1 M18 Hellcat.

I hope BTS is listening...

Griffin.

------------------

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

[russellmz]

in my last tcp game, 500pts, i got an m3a1, mg jeep, and an m-something scout car: my opponent got a hetzer.

my m3a1 got hit in the first 7 sec of combat as it tried to drive behind a church. the mmg and crew did not survive. that pretty much summed up my game =)

------------------

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Guest Madmatt]

We are listening and this is exactly how we want it to behave.

You guys are selecting Combined Arms aren't you? If so then don't expect to get more than a few vehicles because you won't be getting them. In a 1000 Point a battle represents close to 15% of your TOTAL points. That is no small margin and in0line with the ratios that we want.

What you guys are really wanting is not a Combined Arms formation but an Armored Force. For that, you need to select Armor as the force descriminator and not Combined Arms. This issue was already mentioned and answered in a earlier thread.

Just use the Armor selection and you will get what you want.

Madmatt

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 12-04-2000).]

[LuckyStrike]

15% on armor seems plenty reasonable for Combined arms, but in general I'd say about half that is being spent (if any), and the same or less on vehicles.

I don't necessarily want to choose 'armor' because I am likely to get only that...in a recent game playing a 1500 point meeting engagement the computer chose for the German side 4 Jagdpanthers and 6 Stugs. In the old combined arms the German side would likely have had 2-3 armored vehicles, some arty and a decent amount of infantry, ie a balanced combined arms force.

[Olle Petersson]

I once let the computer pick troops for an Armored formation. Ended up with two full infantry companies and two Shermans, plus some other support and vehicles...

I don't consider that formation "armored".

But I partially agree with MadMatt; CM revolves around infantry, and has it as base.

However, a combined arms formation could just as well be based on a tank unit, adding some infantry and artillery for extra protection and enemy suppression.

Cheers

Olle

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt:

What you guys are really wanting is not a Combined Arms formation but an Armored Force. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Having played only a couple of armored battles since 1.1, I probably shouldn't pipe in yet,

but still.. AI doesn't seem to pick any infantry at all for armored forces.

[-E]

ditto to the above:

Selecting combined arms = little to no tanks

Selecting armored = no infantry

[LuckyStrike]

It seems like the forces chosen by the computer in 1.1 are biased more towards increased purchases of infantry compared to 1.05. This seems to result in less armor and vehicles for 'Combined Arms' selections.

[This message has been edited by LuckyStrike (edited 12-04-2000).]

[This message has been edited by LuckyStrike (edited 12-04-2000).]

[Juju]

Well, I've tried this only once, but in a 1000 point combined arms QB the attacking Germans didn't get any vehicles at all! I've never seen that before, and believe me, I fired up a few.

------------------

Der ver zwei peanuts, valking down der Strasse, and von vas...assaulted! peanut. Ho-ho-ho-ho.

[hnh3_cm]

Well, if this is the way it is supposed to work, I'm going back to 1.05.

Combined arms with only infantry is not combined arms, IMO.

[coralsaw]

Seems that usually no tanks are purchased in Combined Arms QB.

Definitely toned down from 1.05.

------------------

I feel like I'm standing in front of the monkey cage at the zoo. - HiramS

[Blindicide]

I've just run a check on my V1.05 using the same parameters and you definitely pick up more armour.Anyway,here are my results.

1000pt Allied:

1)3 Firefly,1 Humber SC

2)2 Stuart,1 M18 Hellcat,1 M3A1 HT

3)2 M4,2 M18 Hellcat,1 M20,1 M3A1 HT

4)4 Stuart,1 M3 HT,2 M3A1 HT

5)3 Churchill VII,3 Kangaroo

2000pt Allied:

1)2 Firefly,1 Churchill VI,2 Stuart,3 Humber SC,1 M5 HT

2)4 Challenger,1 Sherman III,1 Sexton,1 Humber SC,2 MMG Carrier

3)1 Firefly,2 Stuart,4 Humber SC,4 MMG Carrier,1 M5A1 HT

4)4 M4A3(75)W,1 M4A1,2 MG Jeep

5)1 M4,1 M4A3(76)W,1 M4A3(105),2 M20,3 M3 HT,1 M3A1 HT

2000pt German:

1)2 StuG IIIG,1 Hetzer,1 PSW 234/1,1 251/1 HT

2)3 Hetzer,1 PzIVJ,1 Hummel,1 251/1 HT

3)1 StuG IIIG,1 PzIVJ,6 251/9 HT,1 251/2 HT

4)4 251/1 HT,1 250/8 HT,1 250/9 HT

5)1 StuG IIIG,1 PSW 234/1,4 251/1 HT

None of them looked top heavy with armour to my eye for the amount of infantry available.Certainly,the ratios were about what I would have gone for,give or take,if I had picked the forces.Maybe there was a case for a very slight reduction,but if Luckystrikes results are typical it seems like it's been tweaked a bit far.I think I'll stick with 1.05 for a bit yet.

[Warren Peace]

I ran three 1000 pt quick battles in a row with 1.05 and 1.1b. The allies (attacker) seem to be getting signficantly less armor in 1.1b using the combined arms.

Warren

[LuckyStrike]

Given the following change in 1.1:

- Automatic unit purchaser does a better job of using up (nearly) all available points.

the algorithm seems to spend most available points on infantry first. For QBs it seems better to stick with 1.05, since in 1.1 for Combined Arms read 'infantry with maybe a tank or a vehicle or 2' and mechanized read 'infantry with maybe a couple of vehicles' even with thousand of points.

[russellmz]

the funny thing about the point system is that i (when i play the americans) get screwed both ways usually: i can only buy six squads worth and usually only one tank, unless comp decides that what i really need is a mg jeep, halftrack, and scout car armed with a single superkeen mg.(i've stopped using auto buy when i host games...)

my opponent usually gets a hetz or stug and NINE squads in meeting engagements.

as i get my butt kicked(deservedly for not getting the buildings around the flag earlier) i stop to wonder why i don't deserve tanks =(

------------------

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Guest Madmatt]

Okay okay...We hear you.

Charles has made some new tweaks to the AI Purchasing alogarithms so you shouldn't end up with pure infantry forces in Combined Arms QB's anymore.

Madmatt

[russellmz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt:

Okay okay...We hear you.

Charles has made some new tweaks to the AI Purchasing alogarithms so you shouldn't end up with pure infantry forces in Combined Arms QB's anymore.

Madmatt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yay! let there be rejoicing(and debauchary) in the streets!

------------------

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Guest Madmatt]

While the force ratios that we want are still a little lower than what was in V1.05, Charles did find a bug that caused the Ai to sometimes not buy any armor, and thats not quite right either.

By the way, I said the same thing to Charles earlier this week about the force selections and he yelled at me and said I was dumb! I think he called me a poopy head too!

See what I do for you guys?!?

Madmatt

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 12-04-2000).]

[Gunsmithcat]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt:

We are listening and this is exactly how we want it to behave.

This issue was already mentioned and answered in a earlier thread.

Just use the Armor selection and you will get what you want.

Madmatt

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 12-04-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Matt. However, I have to say so sweeping a change should have been mentioned in the readme, maybe it just got left out. It did change without mention so of course we assumed a problem. As for the earlier thread, well, we can't read 'em all ; )

[Raze]

Thanks for taking one for the team Matt!

And thank you Charles for fixing your blunder that Matt had pointed out

------------------

"The art of fighting without fighting..."

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt:

In a 1000 Point a battle [should probably read: ... point battle a tank ...] represents close to 15% of your TOTAL points. That is no small margin and inline with the ratios that we want.

What you guys are really wanting is not a Combined Arms formation but an Armored Force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Okay. The thing is that I don't like to stare at the points alone, but rather into organisation. The points should then allow the desired organisation.

Here's my take on a nicely combined arms formation:

One infantry company.

One platoon/battery of tanks/TDs/assault guns.

One battalion mortar battery. (8cm arty spotter)

One regimental arty battery. (12cm mortar or 75/105mm arty spotter)

In points this adds up to about 1200pts for Regulars, Armor is about half of the points but only about 1/7 of the organisation, given that the inf coy has four platoons.

Voila! about the desired 15%...

I wouldn't call this formation "armoured".

For an armoured formation I'd require roughly equal number of tank and infantry platoons, and preferrably APCs for the infantry.

Comments welcome

Olle

[This message has been edited by Olle Petersson (edited 12-05-2000).]

[LuckyStrike]

Actually if you choose 'Armor' as the force selection you will be able to afford a force exactly as you describe, ie about 350 will go on infantry, 150 on support (the weapons platoon of the infantry company), 250 on arty, and 500 or so on armor or vehicles. This fits in nicely to the 'Armor' points allocation.

Cheers,

Lee

[This message has been edited by LuckyStrike (edited 12-05-2000).]