In response to the "Flimsy German Tank post"

[Guy w/gun]

I totally agree with what was said in the post about "reality". But there's one question i have. Why are US tanks so F'n expensive in QBs relative to German ones?!?!?!

Ok check this out. A regular (as opposed to veteran, etc.) Tiger costs 173. A King Tiger costs 265.

Ok now a regular M4A1 Sherman with a 76mm gun costs 153?! An easy-eight costs 170, and a jumbo 185?! WTF?! If a M4 costs 153, shouldn't a tiger be more like 600? It makes it really hard to out number german armor when a 76mm Sherm costs nearly as much as a Friggin Tiger!!!!

[Lordfluffers]

I agree!!!

Its seems ludicrous that superior German tanks which were much rarer than Allied tanks have a similar points value. British and Yank tanks are so pricy that the advantage they had in WW2 i.e. numbers doesn't apply in QB's.

The British Crocadile costs something near 250 points!!

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

What signal? I see no signal!

Horatio Nelson

Battle of Cape St. Vincent (1796)

[ianc]

Points values are for setting up balanced scenarios, not to reflect historical rarity...

ianc

[aka_tom_w]

Good points

if you are interested in a good juicy tank battle where the Allied tanks of (probably) inferior quality out number the fewer Axis tanks (presumably of Superior quality) then the quick battle with EVEN points for "buying" these things is NOT the way to go.

FORGET Quick Battles

use a new custom designed sceanario or ask that some one design one up for you and release to you and your PBEM opponent for play.

The QB with EVEN points is simply not the right way to play a good tank battle where the Allied tanks out number the Axis tanks. If thats what you want.

but to be fair to BOTH sides, how should the game be written to allow purchases of inferior allied tanks to out number (by HOW much) more expensive (fewer) superior Axis tanks?

Where is the play balance?

In the QB system now for "buying" tanks with points its seems there is actually fariness and pretty good play balance, if you buy many cheap green and conscript allied tanks you can out number your German opponent with inferior tanks.

Its a tough call actually I think.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Guy w/gun]

Ok thats all fine and good but it still doesn't help out with QBs. If my opponent can buy a KT, then i should be able to buy at least 3 Sherms, probably more

[Guy w/gun]

Ok....Thanks for the suggestion. But i never saw what peoples facination about making scenarios for THEMSELVES. I understand making them for others, but when you make one for yourself you don't get the randomness of a QB. And as to using lower level troops, I think its kinda dumb that you'd have to do that when historically German's were outnumbered by Tank crews that were "regulars"

Well, im just glad some people agree with me.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun:

Ok thats all fine and good but it still doesn't help out with QBs. If my opponent can buy a KT, then i should be able to buy at least 3 Sherms, probably more<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you are saying then that a Reg KT should be worth 3 reg Sherm 75s ?

so if the KT was worth 300 points then the Sherms should be worth 100 points each?

If you are REALLY serious about this you should propose and post a your NEW cost and points chart for every vehicle in the game and then other folks here including Steve and Charles can comment on your new point cost proposal.You shuld cost them ALL out with cost per vehicle and per crew experience level.

Just a suggestion

I'm not sure but I think the current system works fairly well to insure good fair play balance.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun:

Ok....Thanks for the suggestion. But i never saw what peoples facination about making scenarios for THEMSELVES. I understand making them for others, but when you make one for yourself you don't get the randomness of a QB. And as to using lower level troops, I think its kinda dumb that you'd have to do that when historically German's were outnumbered by Tank crews that were "regulars"

Well, im just glad some people agree with me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK I agree with you when you say that as the allies using the QB system it is very difficult to buy enough cheap Allied tanks to out number a KT or Panther say 4 or 5 to 1.

Now in reality when the Allies did out number the big german tanks with these numbers, they were almost always victorious so there is no real play balance there to make it fair to both sides. My point is the one BIG factor in the Allies winning the war during the period after D-Day is that they Outnumbered the German's in significant battles. This does not make for fair game play, but for the realistic modeling of the likely result which is the Germans loosing.

So....

The goal should not be to model the way the Allied tanks outnumbered the Axis tanks to win all their engangements but it should be to model some system of equality that would give BOTH the Germans and the Allies an EVEN chance to gain victory through good tactics (and when it comes to tanks especially) GOOD luck.

I think the current system does that fairly well.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Banshee]

Just curious as to why this " response to the "Flimsy German Tank post" " wasn't posted in that thread?

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Guy w/gun]

Yeah I guess your right. Since this is a "game" balance is of the utmost-especially in a non-historical QB. I guess it would be more balanced if the Germans had very few "regular" tanks and the allies had lots of green ones.

[Guy w/gun]

Uh...cuz that post has 80+ threads... i wanted someone to actually read my post ad possibly offer an opinion...can i ask what was the point of you wasting time and posting your message Banshee?

Don't mean to be an ass but I hate it when people post a message that is OT just to be a smart ass.

[MadDog0606]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun:

Uh...cuz that post has 80+ threads... i wanted someone to actually read my post ad possibly offer an opinion...can i ask what was the point of you wasting time and posting your message Banshee?

Don't mean to be an ass but I hate it when people post a message that is OT just to be a smart ass.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How was Banshee being a smart ass with what I think is a legit question? If people are interested in the topic and they find your posts interesting they will respond to your post. All you did was clone a topic of discussion. You should have posted your "Flimsy German Tank post" in the thread where it belonged and not created a new thread on the same topic of discussion.

[Banshee]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun:

can i ask what was the point of you wasting time and posting your message Banshee?

Don't mean to be an ass but I hate it when people post a message that is OT just to be a smart ass.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if everyone was like you what would be the whole point of having threads on a message board? It would just be one post per topic.

And normally I wouldn't post on a thread like this, but since the topic you brought has been posted about 1000000 times (meaning try a search) AND you specifically posted something directly from another topic just so "YOUR" topic would get "heard" (what the other 80+ people posting in that topic have nothing worthwhile to say? or yours is more important?) I'm not starting a flame war, I'm making a point.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Banshee]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadDog0606:

How was Banshee being a smart ass with what I think is a legit question? If people are interested in the topic and they find your posts interesting they will respond to your post. All you did was clone a topic of discussion. You should have posted your "Flimsy German Tank post" in the thread where it belonged and not created a new thread on the same topic of discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly!

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ok, this has been brought up many times in the past. Each vehicle has a point value based on its total abilities. This is far more than just armor and gun, but turret speed, vehicle speed, number of rounds carried, mobility, crew size, number of MGs, etc. More importantly, a vehicle is also rated in relation to how it does against both hard and soft targets. A 75mm armed Sherman is an infantry slaughterer, far better than most German tanks.

In short, the point system is based on a very scientific formula. Contrary to popular belief, an Easy 8 Sherman is a better all around vehicle than the Tiger. Obviously if the two of them are facing each other at 2000m the Tiger is superior, but at standard combat ranges the Sherman might actually have a slight edege over the Tiger.

CM2 will have a price modifier to reflect "rarity". This would make a Tiger more and more expensive each month after June 1944 (for example) since the Germans stopped production at that time. This will be an OPTIONAL system and anybody that is curious to read about our proposed design should do a Search on "Rarity". Several very long threads on it have all the info you need.

Steve

[Guy w/gun]

Actually if you'll take time to compare the post on "Flimsy German Tanks" with 80+ threads is just that...someone asking why German tanks seem weak in comparison to Allied ones.

My post is quite differnet. I'm just asking about point values. I named it "In response..blah...blah.." so it could be an alternate discussion for those who were involved in the other one.

If you weren't being a smart ass, i apologize. But I will say I don't like it when someone suggests a search. If someone wants to post a question that has been answered before, let them. If you want to answere it, do so. If not, don't. There is no point on searching for an open question such as mine. All i will get is a bunch of opinions posted months ago and won't get the benefit of a back and forth discussion as we are having now.

Again, I came off as the ass in this situation, so apologies to Banshee and anyone else who I pissed off.

[Guy w/gun]

Thank you Steve.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun:

here is no point on searching for an open question such as mine. All i will get is a

bunch of opinions posted months ago and won't get the benefit of a back and forth discussion as we are

having now.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well when folks here start using profanity and calling each other names I'm not really sure anyone is "getting the benefit of a back and forth discussion"

Just my own non-flaming way of saying, a positive and constructive debate or discusion in a scholarly manner should be free of profanity and name calling.

-tom w

[Major Tom]

Sorry to harp on the 'rarity' aspect, but, I think that there is a better way to model rarity than just upping the price. What this invariably does, is, reduce the number of other items in the formation, rather than reducing the use of that particular vehicle. If someone really likes the Tiger, and sees its usefullness they will always buy it, even though it might not be economical.

A better way in measuring rarity, would be to restrict the actual choice or number of vehicles allowed on the field. Possibly you can only have a maximum of 1 Tiger on the field for a particular game, with another one at the same time and same place (another game though) not allowing you any Tigers. This would be sort of like creating a random QB with the AI selecting your forces, however, you do get to choose your force, but, certain restrictions exist regarding the avalibility of rare units.

As Steve said, pricing is all about the quality of the vehicle/unit. Upping the price of a unit in contrast to its quality will only serve to mess with the fairness of the game. Instead of making the vehicle rare to buy, what happens is their force is proportionately weaker due to the purchase of this specific unit.

[lassner.1]

Major Tom:

I have been thinking along just the lines that you laid down. Indeed, ASL did something similar to this with their rarity charts: if it was month x year y and one did not roll below z, then the vehicle/weapon in question was not permitted for that DYO scenario. What you note is that this can now be done by the computer automatically when generating a scenario.

I think that the allow/disallow system has the advantage of bringing some variety to games without increasing cost and thereby unbalancing a QB scenario. I hope the BTS considers this method seriously.

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

"Gewaltige Naturen mit starker Eigenpersönlichkeit darf man nicht aus der Umgebung reissen, die ihren Rythmus angenommen hat. . . .In diesem Falle besteht die Gefahr, que du sublime au ridicule il n’y a qu’un pas."

[Guy w/gun]

Again, sorry about everything before

Actually thats not a bad idea Maj. Tom. That would remedy the problem. I guess to further explain why i think it's a problem, i should give an example.

Lets say i set up a QB with 1000 points between me and the AI with me as the germans and the AI as the british. I use my points to buy a KT as my only piece of armor. The AI buys a Cromwell and lots of armored cars. It's not the AI's fault because thats all it can buy because the medium tanks that are needed in mass quantities to take out the KT are so expensive.

Its like the Germans get the Big tanks and decent prices and the allies get lesser tanks at the SAME prices. Therefore they can't use numbers to there advantage. Although this works both ways. Play as the US and buy your Easy 8's and the German AI will buy a bunch of small and medium tanks. The AI is at fault a little because it always seems to go for quantity. In a game between two humans, nothing is stoping the German player from loading up on the good armor. From there, it seems, the allied player would have to rely totally on tactics and even then it might not be enough.

Thoughts anyone?

[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Major Tom]

You can't rate a tank's power solely on its abity to kill another tank in a flat, head on head duel. There are other factors, as Steve pointed out, like tank speed, off road capability (ie. chance of getting bogged), turret rotation and ammo reload times, Infantry killing power (the Sherman was better than a Tiger for this!). Possibly using intelligent tactics one could kill off a Konigtiger with three Shermans pretty easily, virtually guaranteeing 2 surviving Tanks. Now, the Price of the Konigtiger should NOT equal the 3 tanks, as, the 3 tanks were proven to be vastly superior (using competent tactics).

I don't see anything wrong with the way that German and Allied tanks are priced, I do see something wrong in the typical tactical use of them.

Remember, there aren't JUST tanks on a battlefield. You don't always have to kill a tank with a tank, use Infantry occasionally (I find they are easier to use vs. a tank, and the risk of loss is much less). Tanks were originally designed as Infantry support vehicles, it is innane to think that the sole purpose of these AFV's are to kill other AFV's.

Regarding the rarity issue. It could be possible for a 1945 game to allow the Germans to use 4 or more Tiger tanks in a specific Quick Battle (Designed Scenario's should be totally free from the rarity issue). It should be random, to a certian point. You shouldn't always be guaranteed a specific number avalible, or not avalible on a certain date. Possibly the battle was in a place where there happened to be a lot of Tiger tanks.

[Banshee]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Sorry to harp on the 'rarity' aspect, but, I think that there is a better way to model rarity than just upping the price. What this invariably does, is, reduce the number of other items in the formation, rather than reducing the use of that particular vehicle. If someone really likes the Tiger, and sees its usefullness they will always buy it, even though it might not be economical.

A better way in measuring rarity, would be to restrict the actual choice or number of vehicles allowed on the field. Possibly you can only have a maximum of 1 Tiger on the field for a particular game, with another one at the same time and same place (another game though) not allowing you any Tigers. This would be sort of like creating a random QB with the AI selecting your forces, however, you do get to choose your force, but, certain restrictions exist regarding the avalibility of rare units.

As Steve said, pricing is all about the quality of the vehicle/unit. Upping the price of a unit in contrast to its quality will only serve to mess with the fairness of the game. Instead of making the vehicle rare to buy, what happens is their force is proportionately weaker due to the purchase of this specific unit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In close combat 3 (ack), I thought they had quite a good rarity system. Where you could choose units but not all units were available to you, and units could run out (you could buy 1 or 2, but not 3 for example).. if you added this kind of purchasing with true historical ratiry of the time period it would add a lot of spice.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Guy w/gun]

Yeah 3 shermans would be superior to a tiger. But you can't buy 3 Shermans. You can barely by 1 76mm one and a 75mm one. In general whatever amount of points you give for a qb, the germans have the ability to buy superior armor and usually more of it. Tanks don't necessarily have to kill other tanks? True. But a tank will still kill other tanks if it is engaged by them.

[Major Tom]

I would have to say that a Sherman 75 and a Sherman 76, used correctly should be able to knock out a lone Tiger used correctly. Possibly there is an error in your tactics?

There is another post which is harping on (which this one spawned from!) the relative weakness of German tanks, due primarily to poor tactics by the German tanker.

Not every tank engagement had the Germans massively outnumbered by Shermans and they were all swatted away like flied. There are many accounts of good German tanks getting lost in large numbers to just Allied Infantry supported by only a few tanks!

You still aren't listening to the other factors involved. The Shermans can hold more ammo, their turret rotation is faster than German tanks, their reload time is quicker, and their 75mm gun is better for killing infantry. Should we just ignore this on the sole fact that it can't go 1 on 1 against a Tiger? Then we will have German commanders complaining about the inability of the Tiger tank to kill of infantry when compared to the cheap cost of the Sherman tank and demand that their tanks be cheaper...

My point was, it isn't just about tank vs. tank. These AFV's have other jobs as well, and you can't ignore these strength's and weaknesses just because they don't immediately apply to a tank vs. tank shoot out.

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 11-02-2000).]