Purchase Points versus Combat Effectiveness

[Vyper]

I've been playing a bunch of meeting engagements against the AI. I'll set up a random map then build forces to identical point totals. After that, I'll play the scenario twice, once from each side and compare the differences.

What I've found so far is that for the same point total my German forces seem to be 20 to 30 percent better. My average victory with the Germans is in the 80 to 90 range and my American scores run in the 60's to 80's. I also vary who I play first to take battlefield familiarity out of the equation.

I'm curious as to whether this was a deliberate design decision to account for the credible statements that 100 experienced German troops were worth 130 to 140 Americans? This statement was made by an American assessment soon after D-Day. Quite obviously, as the Americans gained experience and the experience mix in the German units changed through attrition, this number would no longer be valid. By late war I could easily see the now battle hardened 101st being more valuable than quite a few Volksturm.

Additionally, I'd consider myself to be below average in playing the game but regularly trounce the AI. Where I make money against the AI is in use of artillery. The AI seems to use a shotgun approach which causes a few casualties but then lifts and shifts before real morale problems occur. I'll find a good target and blitz it. This often changes the complexion of the battle in the early turns. I've even caused two Panthers to bail from a 155 barrage which really helped since I only had a handful of Stuarts.

Has anyone seen anything along the same lines? I know that against many human opponents my artillery tactics wouldn't be nearly as effective. I would assume they would shift forces to prevent a lucrative target from being easily engaged and in turn would pummel any of my concentrations if I wasn't smart on deployment.

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

Vyper

134th FS

[Jarmo]

I've been practicing my tank handling today, with armored quick

battles. I keep losing as germans, although mostly because I

don't use panthers or tigers.

About infantry, axis are better at close range. SMG rules.

[This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 07-16-2000).]

[Jarmo]

Well, practice makes perfect. After many battles lost,

I think I've finally got it. Total victory with PzIV's

and stugs, vs AI's shermans and A-10's. All enemy destroyed

with only one stug lost.

The thing is, you need to use allied forces very differently

than how you use germans.

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Jarmo, elaborate please...

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

Well, practice makes perfect. After many battles lost,

I think I've finally got it. Total victory with PzIV's

and stugs, vs AI's shermans and A-10's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A-10s????? How did the Warthog get into a WW II counter mix? And shouldn't they really kick ass?

Michael

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*:

Jarmo, elaborate please...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing special.

Against infantry, when US, you need to keep your distance,

but as germans, get close.

With tanks, US needs to get close, germans are long range

killers. Things like that.

[This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 07-16-2000).]

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

A-10s????? How did the Warthog get into a WW II counter mix? And shouldn't they really kick ass? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't use the NATO mod-pack?

You should, planes are more effective and Abrams really rules.

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

You don't use the NATO mod-pack?

You should, planes are more effective and Abrams really rules. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have to give that a try. Let's see...if I copy a platoon of Abrams from TacOps and paste it into my CM scenario...Okay, got it! Now if I can just find me a sucker...er, I mean opponent.

Michael