Germans vs Allied in PBEM

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Not fun at all. Has someone made that argument?

Jeff Heidan

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven't you?

You said, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Huh? Historical reality is that there was very little balance in 99% of all engagements at this level. Usually one side (almost always the Allies after 6-6-44) had overwhelming superiority in men and equipment and would roll over their opponenets. What fun is that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't the very act of trying to make "balance" games eliminating the Allied "superiority"?

Cav

[Chupacabra]

CavScout -

What point are you trying to make, exactly?

Should we make Shermans rocket-powered, atomic-cannon firing ubertanks?

The game is not unbalanced. If you have poor luck playing against the Germans, modify your tactics. But there simply is no German superiority.

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-09-2000).]

[Guest Pillar]

Let's just leave the Germans to all these guys then, and let them wonder when they still get beat against the allies.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Isn't the very act of trying to make "balance" games eliminating the Allied "superiority"?

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. You are equivocating between two different meanings of superiority. Are you talking about quantitative superiority, or qualitative? Why is making a scenario balanced eliminating Allied "superiority" (whatever it is you happen to be talkng about)?

Clearly, in a balanced game Allied quantity should balance German quality, or vice versa. There are certainly (many) examples of Allied qualitative superiority.

Do you have a point, or are you just reflexively arguing with everything I say?

Jeff Heidman

[CavScout]

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

What point are you trying to make, exactly?

Should we make Shermans rocket-powered, atomic-cannon firing ubertanks?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have I said that? No. I HAVE advocated for the realistic material advantage for the allies.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The game is not unbalanced. If you have poor luck playing against the Germans, modify your tactics. But there simply is no German superiority.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure what makes you think I have "poor" luck against Germans. I have only lost one game playing as the Americans or other Allies.

Cav

[Chupacabra]

And I quote -

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Orginally posted by Big Time Software-

The myth of Allied material advantage at the tactical level, as a rule, is just that... a myth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-09-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I HAVE advocated for the realistic material advantage for the allies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has someone argued against this?

Are you claiming that there is some person or persons arguing that CM should give the Germans a qualitative advantage that is unmatched by an Allied quantitative advantage? Who would that person be?

Or are you arguing that all QBs should have the "realistic" Allied quantitative advantage enjoyed during the actual war? Which would mean that almost all battles would be rather boring, and inherently unbalanced?

How about a single post, not replying to anyone, where you lay out exactly what your argument is, because I think there are a lot of confused people here.

My point is simple. Currently, CM is just fine the way it is as far as balance is concerned. Where one side has a superior weapon, the point cost reflects that, for the most part. In order to ensure a balanced game, the QB generator forces battles to be roughly equal based on the point cost for each unit. While this does not result in battles that look like most battles that were fought in the time period in question, that is not important, since the purpose of the QB generator is to produce balanced fights, not historical fights.

AFAIK, there has not been a single persons advocating any change to any weapon or unit that would result in an improvement in capabilities without a commensurate increase in the units cost.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, I think people are getting mixed up about what each other means here...

There are, in fact, two different forms of "superiority" (as Jeff pointed out). They are:

1. Qualitative - x vehicle can outshoot and withstand more hits than y vehicle

2. Quantitative - x side generally had y more vehicles than z side

I think Jeff was trying to point out that #2 isn't a lot of fun to play out. I disagree that the Allies had overwhelming tactical superiority in a Quantitative sense 99% of the time, which is why it took almost one very bloody year to defeat the Germans. But this is up to the players to determine (you can change point allocations to favor the Allies)

As we can see in CM, the Allies (when commanded correctly) are not woefully Qualitatively screwed compared to the Germans. That was M. Bates' point and I feel it has been soundly shown to be incorrect. The Rugged Defense ladder numbers put the last nail in that coffin

Whatever is being discussed here now is beyond me Looks like there is nothing left to discuss at all. If it is about "German players always choosing King Tigers" I suggest going and looking at some of the threads on Rarity. A lot of great discussion has already taken place there.

Thanks,

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-09-2000).]

[CavScout]

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

And I quote - "The myth of Allied material advantage at the tactical level, as a rule, is just that... a myth."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you believe that, which I take it you do, then that means the Allies out-performed the Axis at the tactical level, on average. If the battles were always "even" and knowing the Allies continued to make progress, wouldn't this mean the Allies were better at this level?

Cav

[Chupacabra]

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

If you believe that, which I take it you do, then that means the Allies out-performed the Axis at the tactical level, on average. If the battles were always "even" and knowing the Allies continued to make progress, wouldn't this mean the Allies were better at this level?

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A) No one is arguing that the Allies didn't possess an enormous material advantage on the strategic level. This material advantage certainly did affect the outcome of the war. An obvious example of this would be Kursk. AFAIK, the Russians in fact took heavier losses than the Germans. Yet Kursk is considered a Russian victory because the Germans couldn't afford the losses they did take, while the Russians could absorb heavier losses with, if not impunity, then at least more easily. This situation held true for the West front as well. CM models this only abstractly, if at all. The sort of heavy artillery and air support which the Allies received is not modelled within the scope of the game.

Yes, of course there were battles in which the Allies possessed a material advantage on the tactical level. There are canned scenarios in which this is modelled. And, as others have mentioned in other threads, the Allies can typically field more tanks than a German force with an equal number of points. Do the math. It's far cheaper to field a platoon of Shermans than to field a platoon of Panthers. There were also battles in which the Germans possessed a clear material advantage on the tactical level, for example, many of the early Ardennes battles. It is my understanding that it is military doctrine that an attacker can always bring local material superiority to bear against a defending force. Why is it so hard to believe that, in the scope of the game, the Germans could have local material parity or even superiority in some cases?

C) If, as you state, you have no trouble defeating the Germans as the Allies in the game as it is currently, why would you want to beef up the Allies further? I dunno about you, but cakewalks don't interest me. I'd rather use tactics to beat someone than overwhelming material superiority.

I ask you again, what exactly are you calling for?

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Cav, the quote from Chupacabra you used was his quoting of me.

At the tactical level the Allies very often found themsleves with inadequate numbers necessary for offensive action, even though they had vast superiorities in men, material, and supplies. In the West, this was often compounded by a lack of supplies due to the length of supply lines. I know that Rifle units in the US Army were very often badly depleted manpower wise.

So in the big picture, the Allies were able to make good on their losses and concentrate more power in more places than the Germans could. But that did not mean that everywhere along the front the Allies had 10 tanks for every one German tank. It certainly did happen, but the Germans also managed to do this at the tactical level in several large scale battles even though they were at a disadvantage.

But like Jeff and Chupacabra I too am not understanding what relevance this has in regards to M. Bates' original post

Steve

[Banshee]

Not sure if this is true or not, just throwing it out there, but in Citizen Soldier Stephen Ambrose states that on the Western Front during Dec. '44 the germans actually outnumbered the western allies in manpower..

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[ScoutPL]

I tend to agree with the BTS post that this "conversation" is getting no where fast, but here's my opinion anyway...

Who won the battles guys? In the early 40's it was the germans. Though out numbered in tanks and planes they won the campaigns (not always the battles)because they understood how to best utilize combined mechanized arms at that particular time. End of story. They didnt come to the fight with a stomach full of wheaties or better genes. They just had better doctrine and the will to use it. Later in the war they fell behind the power curve. Mostly due to who was in charge (Hitler) but then we are talking about a dictatorship headed by a madman. German tanks may have had bigger guns and better armor but at the end of the day they were the ones pulling back over the next ridge or digging in behind the next river. Bottom line. Were they outnubered? Of course they were! Why argue anything else. Would you rather atttack a fortified position with 20 guys or 5? Give me twenty anyday. The art of it comes in to play when you look at how many you had left to do the same thing again the next day. I think it can be argued that both sides had their ups and downs when it came to that aspect. We(the Allies) were out to win a war! No one should feel like they have to defend the idea that we brought more tanks or planes to the fight. That was the whole frigging point!! If you can produce a buttload of tanks now and go take back Europe in a year or wait a year or two to develop the perfect tank, I think you should go now! Full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes, etc...

As far as CM is concerned, if its that important to you to fight balanced (or unbalanced) games, then design them yourself!!

[CavScout]

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

A) No one is arguing that the Allies didn't possess an enormous material advantage on the strategic level. This material advantage certainly did affect the outcome of the war. An obvious example of this would be Kursk. AFAIK, the Russians in fact took heavier losses than the Germans. Yet Kursk is considered a Russian victory because the Germans couldn't afford the losses they did take, while the Russians could absorb heavier losses with, if not impunity, then at least more easily. This situation held true for the West front as well. CM models this only abstractly, if at all. The sort of heavy artillery and air support which the Allies received is not modelled within the scope of the game.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor example as the Allies, in the West, didn't suffer more casualties than the Germans. They inflicted more, in terms of KIA, WIA and captured. You are not equating the Allies {West} with the Soviet's are you?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Yes, of course there were battles in which the Allies possessed a material advantage on the tactical level. There are canned scenarios in which this is modelled. And, as others have mentioned in other threads, the Allies can typically field more tanks than a German force with an equal number of points. Do the math. It's far cheaper to field a platoon of Shermans than to field a platoon of Panthers. There were also battles in which the Germans possessed a clear material advantage on the tactical level, for example, many of the early Ardennes battles. It is my understanding that it is military doctrine that an attacker can always bring local material superiority to bear against a defending force. Why is it so hard to believe that, in the scope of the game, the Germans could have local material parity or even superiority in some cases?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one has argued that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

C) If, as you state, you have no trouble defeating the Germans as the Allies in the game as it is currently, why would you want to beef up the Allies further? I dunno about you, but cakewalks don't interest me. I'd rather use tactics to beat someone than overwhelming material superiority.

I ask you again, what exactly are you calling for?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If CM has been designed for "balanced" games, then any "historic" tweaking of Axis men and material is going to have to be balanced by similar tweaks for the Allies.

What I object to is the hypocrisy is neturalizing Allied "historic" advanatges to make the game "balanced" but the continuation of so-called "historic" Axis tweaks.

Cav

[Guest machineman]

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

If you believe that, which I take it you do, then that means the Allies out-performed the Axis at the tactical level, on average. If the battles were always "even" and knowing the Allies continued to make progress, wouldn't this mean the Allies were better at this level?

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I see what you are getting at. Were the Allies better at a tactical level, IN THE WAR ITSELF?

That's a whole other debate I think, and I know some are going to disagree with me. In MY opinion, however, from what I've read so far, it was summed up in a quote from a US army study after the war (don't have the book to hand so from memory)

"By late 1944, analyzing the figures, we came to the conclusion that in battle 100 Germans were worth about 125 US or British Troops, or about 200 Soviets. This did not mean that the average German was any more brave or intelligent than the average Soviet, but when fighting in combat units, the average German was about as effective as twice as many Russians......more than anything the advantage seemed to come down to the Germans General Staff system. The British, American, and Russian armies all had generals that were every bit as good as the best of the Germans, but the Germans had 10 times as many."

So in other words better commanders. The command system also tended to go from the front to the back, and high ranking commanders were at the front a lot more often than the Allied (collecting much higher casualities, BTW. Steel Inferno is a really interesting read on the different command styles). I'd throw in the better small unit bonding from the better replacement system and a few other things, but staying on the main point...

So, the commanders and the command system made the difference. But in CM, YOU are the commander. This evens things up. From what I've seen, between a good German and a good American commander, with everything else being equal, battles were won or lost based on who could managed his particular advantages and disadvantages better and/or who lady luck was shining on that day, just like in CM.

[CavScout]

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

"By late 1944, analyzing the figures, we came to the conclusion that in battle 100 Germans were worth about 125 US or British Troops, or about 200 Soviets. This did not mean that the average German was any more brave or intelligent than the average Soviet, but when fighting in combat units, the average German was about as effective as twice as many Russians......more than anything the advantage seemed to come down to the Germans General Staff system. The British, American, and Russian armies all had generals that were every bit as good as the best of the Germans, but the Germans had 10 times as many."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do hear things like this all the time but it makes you wonder how folks like the Americans were able to inflict lopside casualties on the Germans or how inferior, numerically and materially, Allied units could defeat German ones.

Cav

[ScoutPL]

"So in other words better commanders. The command system also tended to go from the front to the back, and high ranking commanders were at the front a lot more often than the Allied (collecting much higher casualities, BTW. Steel Inferno is a really interesting read on the different command styles)."

What hogwash. Your quote refutes the statement you made anyway:

"By late 1944, analyzing the figures, we came to the conclusion that in battle 100 Germans were worth about 125 US or British Troops, or about 200 Soviets. This did not mean that the average German was any more brave or intelligent than the average Soviet, but when fighting in combat units, the average German was about as effective as twice as many Russians......more than anything the advantage seemed to come down to the Germans General Staff system. The British, American, and Russian armies all had generals that were every bit as good as the best of the Germans, but the Germans had 10 times as many."

I think your quote is erroneous in the extreme anyway, but what it is saying is that the germans had more STAFF officers. Which means more planners, which means more time and energy could be spent on plans, logistics, communications, etc. Which is really just a holdover from the Great War. Staffs today are much smaller, and not just due to technical advances, but because it was discovered you could win a war without huge general staffs. You really think Rommel kicked so much butt in North Africa because he had an engorged staff albatross around his neck? Hardly. Dont get battlefield style and staff functions mixed up. I would also argue that the biggest reason the germans lost so many officers is due to the fact that for the last few years of the war they were in incresingly desperate straits. Too many pockets with entire army corps surrendering or being decimated will lead to a very high officer body count.

I've read plenty of military leadership style studies myself (being a military leader), particularly Creveld's works on the subject. And though I dont agree with him on a lot of things he makes a few good points about leading from the front and what sort of situations really warrant it. Getting your butt kicked every time you turn around in Europe probably constitutes a time when leading from the front is essential to success (survival). But being the army that's doing the butt-kicking just doesnt require that as much.

[Guest machineman]

Well I could see the patriotic knives coming out before I even posted that one. Another part of that quote was, from the person who conducted the study (again, from memory):

"As a former officer in the US military, these numbers did not particularly please me. I would have assumed by the latter part of the war we would have learned enough that the figures would have been approximately even, but..."

If I can find the book here I'll post the reference and the exact wording.

Anyway, Cav, if what drives you to argue with everyone is YOUR opinion that the Allies were the more effective army in real life and therefore everything they have should be better, either way you argue it, that would still be a whole different thread.

I hold that it was the commanders and the command system that made the difference, and in PBEM games that is modeled by the players skill, not Combat Mission.

[Lorak]

I've tried to not say anything, But It has gotten to where I really don't understand what the issue is.

I view the Quick battles in CM as kind of a WWII chess match. Try and make both sides as even as possible and then duke it out. If you are having problems facing players that demand to play the germans and then only by uber armor. Then you have just found some bad sports. Write the games off and move on. There are plenty of us out there who play to be fair.

Now if you are looking for a material advantage for the allies just for the sake of history, thats fine too. I just think you'll find it hard to play anyone that way. I like games to be fair, (yes I play all sides, not just german).

But there is no way I would consider a chess match in which I got a full set, and the other guy got some pawns, and 1 bishop, fair. Hell wouldn't even be fun enough to play.

As far as the PBEM "problem" being BTS's fault? what the hell are you people talking about?

BTS had one job. To depict the equipment and units used in WWII as close and as accurate to their historic counter parts as possible. To me they have done one hell of a job.

But their job ends there. Setting up a PBEM game. With what ever forces you wish to use, ect... That is your job.

You just have to keep in mind that if what you want to design is a totally one-sided battle, your opponant list might be real small.

Lorak

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

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats

Cesspool

[ScoutPL]

Another question concerning your quote. How could they have accurate casualty figures for the germans in 1944 to make such an assessment anyway?

Also, my patriotism has nothing to do with how I view this particular piece of history. I am extemely familiar of the pitfalls and prejudices that come with a large military organization like the US Army and am also well aware that something as complex as WWII will never be solved on this post. But I am a trained historian and an army officer and I say you're assessment is way off base. But then you know what they say about opinions....

[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 10-09-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

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

If CM has been designed for "balanced" games, then any "historic" tweaking of Axis men and material is going to have to be balanced by similar tweaks for the Allies.

What I object to is the hypocrisy is neturalizing Allied "historic" advanatges to make the game "balanced" but the continuation of so-called "historic" Axis tweaks.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I too have tried to just lurk in this thread but I would like to post to ask CavScout which Allied "historic" advanatges are modeled as"neturalized" in the game and which so-called "historic" Axis tweaks, have been modeled to make the game "balanced" ?

I have not found these kinds tweaks modeled CM?

just curious?

-tom w

[virtualfreak]

Ok lets say for a second that we play a PBEM game that is absolutly accurate in allied suppuriority. Lets say the year is 1945 we play as the germans. Under your command is one platoon of conscripted Volkstrom,1 75mm antitank gun, and two panzerVI's.

After the Allies pound your position with P-51 mustangs and 105mm arty you go up against an allied force consisting of on platoon of veteran infantry, 5 sherman 76s, and 2 sherman jumbos. Plus air and arty support and lots of reinforcements.

Now you tell me is this not a one sided game?

[Tanaka]

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

I've tried to not say anything, But It has gotten to where I really don't understand what the issue is.

I view the Quick battles in CM as kind of a WWII chess match. Try and make both sides as even as possible and then duke it out. If you are having problems facing players that demand to play the germans and then only by uber armor. Then you have just found some bad sports. Write the games off and move on. There are plenty of us out there who play to be fair.

Now if you are looking for a material advantage for the allies just for the sake of history, thats fine too. I just think you'll find it hard to play anyone that way. I like games to be fair, (yes I play all sides, not just german).

But there is no way I would consider a chess match in which I got a full set, and the other guy got some pawns, and 1 bishop, fair. Hell wouldn't even be fun enough to play.

As far as the PBEM "problem" being BTS's fault? what the hell are you people talking about?

BTS had one job. To depict the equipment and units used in WWII as close and as accurate to their historic counter parts as possible. To me they have done one hell of a job.

But their job ends there. Setting up a PBEM game. With what ever forces you wish to use, ect... That is your job.

You just have to keep in mind that if what you want to design is a totally one-sided battle, your opponant list might be real small.

Lorak

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right on !

If you want to play historical battles do a "mirrored" type of PBEM. The result of this game is the add up of the points of the 2 PBEMs played in the same map under the same conditions.

João

PS-You could always play against the AI

[Maj. Bosco]

I'd like to clear up the historical allied/axis advantages that CavScout is talking about. The German advantage is quality of equipment and the Allied is quantity. His problem is that whenever the germans get an advantage in equipment that is (or is at least called) historical the allies do not get a reciprical increase in the quantity of equipment they can buy.

That being said I think that the game is balanced just fine the way it is. The germans can abuse their armor, the allies their scout vehicles (god bless the Jeep MG). In a rarity thread some one bought up the idea of pricing varying by terrain, which is the only way to make the game truly balanced all the time. Germans do better in wide open places, allies do better in covered areas, and it's pretty much up to recon tactics in the really heavily wooded areas.

There are some minor issues in balance. I think allied air ought to put much more of a cramp into german armor in those wide open spaces they like so much and I'd like to see tank crews use their tungsten more but those are minor issues. The sides are, if not absolutely, then very very closely balanced.

[Mark IV]

...try Allied air when forces are 5-800m apart and you'll find what the Allies found (and why they quit doing it). That's not what Allied air turned out to be real good at. They excelled at whacking units on the way to the front... but the Allied troops (and generals) themselves didn't want 'em launching that close to the lines...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I object to is the hypocrisy is neturalizing Allied "historic" advanatges to make the game "balanced" but the continuation of so-called "historic" Axis tweaks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's called "scenario editor" and if you want to jellify a company of Green Volksstuermers with 14" batteries, or whatever, you can do it all day. Words like "hypocrisy" really don't achieve whatever it is you want to achieve.

Local superiority (or parity), and concentrations in time and space, were understood by attackers and counter-attackers of all sides. These concepts are well-represented in CM.

Are you trying to prove that the Allies won the war (sorry, needs documentation )? You have yet to state just what it is you are "for"? Like, specifically? In CM terms? What Allied tweaks are you interested in researching and presenting, other than just that there were more of them?