Shermans seem overpriced

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And what is the right tool for the US to use for anti-tank work on an open map???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scott-

Others have pretty much already answered the way I would: the right tool in the case you describe is air, arty, or a lot of Shermans/TDs and some luck.

I'm personally not too concerned about 'fairness' in games - sometimes you get the short end and have to do what you can do. And sometimes you fail. Hopefully you soften the enemy position up enough so that the next company/battalion rotated into your sector can have a better shot.

If it helps, think of your forces as the 'holding' portion of a holding attack, with someone else wheeling around the flanks

while you're getting bled.

In CM terms, I guess you play for a draw instead of a win.

-dale

[This message has been edited by dalem (edited 09-21-2000).]

[Banshee]

The point system wasn't designed for historical accuracy (thus the whole, if I was an american commander in 1944 I would have XX shermans vs this one german tank, is moot). It designed to give an equal balanced force when points are equal. Now just because in this instance you had advantageous terrain for your Panther doesn't mean the game is unbalanced it is just bad luck. If you wish to give more historical accuracy bump up the force % in the QB editor.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[IntelWeenie]

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

I should also say I think the random QB are right on -- especially in smaller contest. You get all sorts of funny German units that no one buys otherwise, and you have to make this heap of oddball units work for you -- it can be very fun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hee, hee. Once in a QB the computer bought me a Crack H-39....

It only caused one infantry casualty since I was rather tenative about using it.

I think the Sherman points are fine. If you really want better (more historical) odds, ask for bonus points if playing as the US on an open map.

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

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[Slapdragon]

This whole thing came up when I faced an opponent who gave Scott's game parameters: Open map, no air, I play Germans on defensive. He parked 3 King Tigers onto tall hills and then had the nerve to ask for a restart when I got an A-Kill on one of the KTs by using three tanks (actually a TD and two HMCs).

(If this has never happened to you: just wait -- on ladder or tourney play you have a small core of German only players who insist on open maps. In the ASL convents you use to have to run over them, and they would get into a position and then stick their. It is not a problem on most ladders anymore -- but they are a pain in the buttox. I offered a rematch at night in the fog and the guy declined -- so I know he only plays must win scenarios).

I finally figured that the Americans, on an open map, are nearly unwinnable -- I have only fought one real player, Abbott, to a single standstill by positioning a Jackson in a hard to kill spot and corralling his Tiger. On a heavily forested, night, or fogged map, I think the numbers are dead on.

So the ladder choice is quit playing open maps, quit playing the German only or I wont play gang.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I think the best way for ladder play is for one player to declare the parameters and house rules and then the other player should get to choose sides. Thats the way we always did it in board games in DYO.

If they insist on playing only Germans then you design the scenario.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-21-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-21-2000).]

[Tanaka]

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

The point system wasn't designed for historical accuracy (thus the whole, if I was an american commander in 1944 I would have XX shermans vs this one german tank, is moot). It designed to give an equal balanced force when points are equal...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

The points system IS designed for historical accuracy... The problem is other, when you do a meeting engagement the game automatically awards both sides equal points. How many times in the late western front the odds were 1:1 ? The answer is very few...

But who in a ladder wants to play at 2:1 or more ? I don´t...

If you prize historical accuracy play a chelange game and boost the allied side with what ever you want. In thise type of battle the winer is who gets the most points over the 2 same condiction battles played for diferent sides respectively.

[Tanaka]

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

...Open map, no air, I play Germans on defensive. He parked 3 King Tigers ...wait -- on ladder or tourney play you have a small core of German only players who insist on open maps...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For those players that never change the battle condition and so on, it´s simplel,don´t play them. In all my pbem ( 20 by now) I never sow a Sherman Jumbo, a Pershing or a King Tiger... the points were there, I don´t know why, but my opposing players never bought them...

João

[Slapdragon]

Well some things:

If both players use random forces then the system works great. I like that anyway since you cannot tailor forces to the environment.

In ladder play equality is the goal.

In historical play I don't expect to win, only to see what the historical commander faced.

For Americans, I am developing my fog fighting skills .

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...developing my fog fighting skill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And pray tell who are you developing these "skills" on?

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-22-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

Why Scott my friend! I have one accidental fog scenario going and yours, but I am about ready to write a manual on it. After I hose those silly TDs of yours with my Nashorn and push you kicking and screaming from the board yelling for mercy I will let you know if I am still practicing or have perfected it !

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 09-22-2000).]

[Simon Fox]

There is a simple answer to this dilemma:

"British is best"

[Slapdragon]

As long as they don't stop to brew up

[tss]

dalem wrote:

Given no options but to use the wrong tool for the wrong job, then best be lucky.

Like they say, if your only tool is a hammer, you will see all problems as nails. And if your only tool is an axe, all problems suddenly start to look interesting and fun to solve after all.

- Tommi

[Wayne]

The problem with QB's and the single battle scenarios is that they reflect only 20-60 minutes of action. In the real world of WWII, if an armored attack stalled or was thrown back because of a platoon of Panthers, the Allied commander would call in an air strike or a TOT artillery mission on the German position. He'd wait an hour or two and then move in with a reinforced battalion. We complain about losing a 30 minute scenario like it was the whole Normandy Campaign. It is a small action in a very much larger war. The inequalities of allied armor vs. German armor was a fact that every allied commander had to face.

Perhaps the solution is to play QB's as operations with two players agreeing to play 3-5 rounds. The loser of the previous round gets some kind of advantage in the subsequent round and both agreeing to keep the same parameters for each round. Every third or fourth round could be changed to a night scenario to reflect a full day's battle. The winner of the operations would be the player with highest percentage score. I've felt for some time now that operations reflected the true conditions in war reather than single battles.

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

Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Wayne: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The inequalities of allied armor vs. German armor was a fact that every allied commander had to face.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one is arguing that. But these "inequalities" as the effect these small 20-30 minute battles have to be accounted for in the game's point system if the game is to have any semblance of balance. And for the record, I think CM's point system does a pretty good job overall.

Historical reality of what really happened is totally irrelevant. Like those that say the Sherman is over-priced because the Allies had ten times as many Shermans as the Germans had Panthers or the statement about falling back and just calling in the P47s. This is irrelevant to the tactical abilities of the unit in a single CM battle or operation and thus should have no impact on the point value of the unit.

The 'problem' with creating 'realistic' point values arises when the battlefield conditions are not consistent, and I don't just mean environmental conditions. Shermans work fine against enemy infantry for example, but in strictly anti-armor work, even when supplemented with TDs and special Shermans the Allies are over-matched point for point on a 'open' map.

The only solution (IMO) is to have a variable point system that changes depending on not only the environmental conditions (who here thinks a Jadgtiger is just a valuable on a heavily forested and muddy map in the fog as a dry 'open map? ) but the point values should also vary according to the general force composition of the enemy and the mission. For example: Sherman would cost more when facing an enemy force set on "Infantry" in an attack mission than when facing an enemy force with a setting of "Armored" in a meeting engagement. Of course such a point system is complex as Hell and with all point systems it will never please everybody all the time. So, is it really worth the effort?

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Slapdragon]

If ladder play used campaign games -- with returning forces and multiple players fighting over set spaces, this would not even be an issue. Also, if random setups were the rule it would also not usually be a problem -- if every aspect was random, since the mud would make people wary of some of the best German machines.

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

Don't forget the German medium tank platoons were only 3 tanks, not 5. So points wise Sherman platoon to a Panther Zug is about even.

[Claymore]

In Summary...

Slapdragon: I finally figured that the Americans, on an open map, are nearly unwinnable -- I have only fought one

real player, Abbott...

BTS: But a full platoon of Sherman Easy 8s is about as expensive as 5 Panthers. And it should be that way too, as the Easy 8s were a match for them...

SClinton: I am not fully convinced that Shermans are really overpriced...

Tank Man: Another thing, it sounds to me like people use Allied tanks in the way that Axis tanks should be used....

Dalem: Given no options but to use the wrong tool for the wrong job, then best be lucky...

etc..

Well I have just started a large battle with Fionn where it looks like it will be my Shermans against his Panthers (Fionn's rule of 75's No.. The map is aprox 1800 x 2400 of small hills and farmland in the daylight and dry. He had 3000pts to spend and I had 4500. I'm not afraid, in fact I expect to do very well. Anybody willing to lay odds?

Cheers

[Slapdragon]

Your meat, but I am rooting for you!!!

[Jeff Heidman]

I do not like Fionn, but I do respect him.

I say Fionn cleans your clock, unless you can get Mike Ditka on your side.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He had 3000pts to spend and I had 4500.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A 50% handicap? Or is this not an meeting engagement?

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[aka_tom_w]

Fionn has ticked me off in the past too, but with his Panthers and his 3000 points my money is on Fionn.

You know now that you have posted about this you will be obliged to keep us posted and up to date in this thread as that sounds like it should be a VERY interesting battle.

Good luck

-tom w

[Slapdragon]

Yes, please keep us informed! And, I would like a screen shot of your forces on turn 20. I will call it "Brewing Shermans".

Seriously, I used to work for a Physicist as a media developer and they are some type of tough when it comes to research or planning. This thing may fool us.

Time for me to make a call to Vegas

[Banshee]

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

Hi,

The points system IS designed for historical accuracy...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you misunderstand my definition of historical accuracy. I mean the points given in the system doesn't reflect the material advantage that the allies enjoyed (i.e. more points) (edit see below, I think you're wrong by saying the above)

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

The problem is other, when you do a meeting engagement the game automatically awards both sides equal points. How many times in the late western front the odds were 1:1 ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly what I just said, if the point system was historically accurate then either Men & Material would cost less or we would get more points (i.e. the point system is NOT historically accurate).I guess it depends on your definition of "historical accuracy". The point system was designed arround performance (again NOT historical accuracy) , i.e. a tank with X amount of armor would cost less than an a tank with (X+1) amount of armor all else being equal. Points have nothing to do with logistical issues or rarity factors. I stand by my statement and think you are wrong when saying the point system is historically accurate.

edit: BTW, I like the way the point system is now, wouldn't have them change a thing.

edit 2: also you can always agree to play the Rule of 75's and the issue is solved.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 09-22-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 09-22-2000).]

[Claymore]

Is nobody willing to take my side? Ahhh...I love a challange, makes it all the easier. If I lose then it's to Fionn who was using the evil uberPanthers and my stock is not diminished. If I win against all odds then my tactical prowess is unquestioned.

For the curious:

The map was quick generated in the scenario editor using the same dimensions as a QB 3000 attack. We agreed to the force sizes and sent the particulars to a third party to generate the game. Since Fionn is the NAMED CM player, I would have accepted far worse odds to play him. I have posted that I needed a good spanking (re:Require Crack Opponent thread) in any regard. My only regret is that I purchased any zooks at all.

The Results of Turn 1....Lot's of un-gamey slow recon which has revealed two of my least favourite OPFORs (Little and friend NotEnough).

Cheers