95% Unrealistic forces because of unit cost

[Insu]

Sorry if I repeat anything that´s been discussed but after a discussion with several other CM gamers I wanted to express our thoughts.

Does any of you feel that the tactics used, partly because of the unit cost, does not reflect the historical battlefield?

Of course you have! How many times do you see the PzIV, M4 and the other less fancy but historically heavily represented tanks?

Why? Because they are not worth the bucks. Knowing that many of you think this is baloney and will ruin the fun some of us really think that the above tanks should be a LOT cheaper, say 100 for the PzIV and 90 for the M4. IMO this problem mostly occur in ME where the germans have have an advantage.

I would imagine that most of you find the Hetzer at 85 pts to be a bargain, if not the most price worth unit there is.

Rules between players are sometimes needed to reduce the FP but even with rules most people, including me, buy the larger guns cause they are worth the small extra cost. Should we have to agree with everyone that u cannot use that and I will not use that and so forth?

So, what is the general opinion besides using rules between players?

[Guest Germanboy]

A meeting engagement is a highly unlikely occurence and could therefore be called 'gamey' anyway. Brendan Phibbs in 'The other side of time' calls it 'The maximum f***ed-up fog of war'. In his definition (he witnessed one at Herrlisheim between 12th US Armoured and some SS as Combat Surgeon of CCB in the 12th), it is an unexpected collision of advancing forces. In CM they are not unexpected, and they are balanced, i.e. gamey. IMO they mostly exist for PBEM purposes and therefore are not particularly interesting. I much prefer games of attack/defense, if I do QBs at all.

If I play a QB, I just play people I trust to play with realistic forces. I don't believe that you can have any hard and fast rules anyway, just look at some of the discussions on the board.

The point being - instead of having BTS figure out the unit cost all over again, I would much rather see them do something productive.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-09-2000).]

[tss]

Germanboy wrote:

A meeting engagement is a highly unlikely occurence and could therefore be called 'gamey' anyway.

Agreed.

it is an unexpected collision of advancing forces.

Sometimes it was unexpected by only one side. An example would be a counter attack against an enemy spearhead by reserves that were unknown to them. Yes, most counter attacks were aimed at the flanks of the attacker but sometimes there was no other possibility than to go from front.

One example is the Kuuterselkä counter attack on June 14 when Finnish armored counter attack smashed into the Soviet spearhead.

As a side note, sometimes attacking flanks of an enemy breakthrough was just the wrong thing to do. Soviets in particular had a nasty habit of staging fake breakthroughs with the explicit purpose of getting the defender to attack the base of the breach. They would carry an astonishing amount of AT guns and MGs to the breach and mass an overwhelming artillery concentration to shoot at the expected route of counter attack.

Sure, this tactics was very costly in terms of manpower (getting that fake breakthrough will cost lots of men) but it would tie up and attrite the enemy reserves so that when the real breakthrough attemp was started the next day it would meet much less resistance.

- Tommi

[Stoffel]

yes in a way you are right.

A mk IV costs more than an M8 and still I lost two of these tanks and a puma to an M-8 with frontal armor penetrations.

So the mk IV could be less expensive IMO.

I always try to use a goodbalanced force.

I hate it when you play someone and (start an attack with some tanks and infantrysquads)

he or she has 2 or 3 times more ATguns and machineguns than normal were available.

Fortunate this happened only once until now.

Recently I played only QB with a mechanized or infantryforce.This is very exiting and you do not have to rely on tanks.

Which are more vulnerable to all kind of threaths.

You have to think more careful about your moves.

[PzKpfw 1]

Tommi has a good point, the Soviet recon in force operations that became common prior to launching offensive operations in late 1943 were so large that the Germans often mistook these ops as an major attack, and commited forces prematurely etc.

Then later when the actual attack took place the German reserves had already been commited usualy at the wrong location due to Soviet deception operations.

As to cost of units I dunno what to say as an example that I have used in past threads in other topics concerning this, the Panther is generaly considered by most to be a rare tank many still consider, useing them in PBEM's as ahistorical. Yet in reality the Panther was almost numericly equal to the PzKpfw IV, in the West.

I to have lost many a PzKpfw IV to M8's, Stuart's, & Shermans to Puma's, etc but their is not much we can do, as in reality an M8 etc, would not take on a tank period; except in very rare cases.

But CM cant model them bugging out as they actualy did, on sighting a tank could you see ppl if their M8's or Stuarts ran willy nilly away on sighting a Panthert?. BTS cant be expected to police ppl who use their units ahistoricly. thats something the ppl playing the PBEM need to work out themselves.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-09-2000).]

[Runyan99]

Speaking of unit points, here is an observation I recently made:

November '44

Jeep (with .50 cal MG) - 19 pts

Empty truck - 21 pts

Does not make much sense to me.

[Gordon]

I guess it depends on what you want the vehicle for. Don't think a squad will be very comfortable in a jeep.

A Volkswagen Beetle if it's parked on a college campus maybe, but not a jeep.

Gordon

[Echo]

I can tow a 150mm with a truck [grin].

[Insu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... the Panther is generaly considered by most to be a rare tank many still consider, useing them in PBEM's as ahistorical. Yet in reality the Panther was almost numericly equal to the PzKpfw IV, in the West.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you are right John, the Panther should not be considered rare but the problem I have is that in CM games the PzIV and the M4 are rare (at least in the games I´ve played), IMO probably because of the cost.

This could of course be settled with the opponent but that´s not the most exciting way. I wouldn´t want BTS to spend any time on this but maybe as I think Steve pointed out there will/might be an optional rule that regulates these kind of things in CM2. Did I say it was going to be optional?

So, maybe I just wanted to have something to complain about...

[Guest aaronb]

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

This could of course be settled with the opponent but that´s not the most exciting way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been using Fionn's short-75 rule to good effect. Just tell your opponent you want to do it that way, and you get a more historical mix, points be damned.

If your opponent breaks the rule, drop the game and don't play him/her again. Is that exciting enough?

Of course, Pillar never mentioned this, so I bought some Really Big Tanks in our current game. He'll find them soon enough... and the best part is, if he reads this, that he'll assume I'm bluffing.

I agree with Germanboy about QB's - most scenarios are better (more interesting and varied) - but there is a shortage of good scenarios to play double-blind.

[Chupacabra]

RE: relative costs, remember that unit costs in CM are based on total effectiveness, not just anti-tank effectiveness. Yeah, Hetzers are great in ambush positions against advancing tanks, but they have a low ammo loadout, no turret, and extremely weak side/rear armor. Which means that in any sort of battle of maneuver, they'll most likely be dead very quickly.

Shermans and Mark IVs aren't what I'd choose for anti-armor work, but they absolutely murder infantry. Both are much better at that task than say, a Panther. A King Tiger will be an expensive piece of burning metal if a couple of relatively cheap Shermans can get on its flanks.

If you're assuming that a tank's combat effectiveness only relates to its capabilities against enemy armor in a straight-up slugfest, then yeah, their costs are going to look a bit skewed. But in terms of overall utility, I find their costs quite accurate.

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Wilhammer]

God knows I have spilled a lot of digital ink on this subject.

As BTS has stated, they will try to rectify this and historical imbalance issues with a rarity option in CM2.

I have to wonder though if BTS ever expected QBs to be used this much.

Would it be fair to say that 90%+ of PBEMs are QBs?

I have done about 8 PBEM games, and excepting the Beta days, they are all QBS.

[Guest tero]

To get historically "accurate" force mixes the PzKw-IV (actually ALL turreted German vehicles) would need to become MORE expensive and less easily obtainable relative to the Stug-III/IV and the Marder range TD's, which would need to become cheaper relative to the turreted tanks. And the prices of all should become higher relative to the towed/static AT assets.

[Hunter]

I find the points costs remarkably well done. I have often fought against and with Mk IVs, which are a good balanced medium tank without the expense of a Panther.

Of course, I still have my favourites and those I think are 'good value' in certain circumstances.

I agree with you that the 'Combined Arms, Quick Battle' is a slightly unrealistic battle situation, but if that is what we choose to play...

Remember that the Allies would be expecting to fight german infantry forces most of the time, and for that job the Sherman is a nice piece of kit.

The pieces that I think are 'too expensive' are mg armed halftracks and the like, but I look forward to somebody proving me wrong on the battlefield.

Bruce

[Guest Pillar]

Aaron,

I think I've got you figured out now. That comment above was not a bluff... but the one about the jeep was.

Luckily for you, I never bluff.

[WendellM]

Balancing realistic unit cost and rarity isn't a new challenge. IMHO, CM has the right idea by making units "cost" (in theory) what they were "worth" and not fiddling with that to reflect rarity. What's needed is a separate 'rarity' factor.

For example, Babylon 5 Wars (while it's a bit far afield) handles it thus:

There are four categories: Unlimited Deployment, Limited Deployment, Restricted Deployment, and Special Deployment. Unlimited units can always be bought. No more than 33% of combat points spent on a fleet can be spent for Limited units, but a minimum of one is always allowed. Restricted units can comprise no more than 10% of a fleet, but as long as there are at least two units bought, one can always be Restricted. Special units have special rules about when they're allowed. Thus, combat cost is based on usefulness, but you can't always buy the best if they're rare.

If an SF boardgame can do this, surely something like this (based on time periods) wouldn't be tough to create for CM2 and to retrofit to CM via a patch.

[This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 11-10-2000).]

[Olle Petersson]

Wendell, your idea seems like just the right thing.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that the general availability of units on the front line shouldn't really apply to individual games in CM, but to the total number of games played.

Stoffel wrote:

"I hate it when you play someone and (start an attack with some tanks and infantrysquads)

he or she has 2 or 3 times more ATguns and machineguns than normal were available."

This is a typical example of where the enemy had anticipated an attack at that part of the front line and concentrated the heavy weapons there. Had Stoffel chosen (which he couldn't) to redirect the attack to a point a few km to either side (off map) the attack would meet much less resistance.

It's the total number of units available througout the front line, most of which is off map, that should be balanced, not what's available for a single game.

Cheers

Olle

[Stoffel]

Olle you didn't understand what I said.

Sure if your enemies mainforce moves to a point you move the best troops you have to counter that threath but that is not what I meant.

What I meant is someone challenge you and sends a setup he does not tell you he will be the defender.

So you pick your units and try to do it well balanced.

Than you see when the game is well on its way that your opponent has instead of a normal inf company with ONE heavy weapons company,your opponent has two heavy weaponunits or he has added 5 or 6 machineguns and many antitankweapons extra to his force.

That is the main disadvantage of a QB or maybe even GAMEY tactic because in real life you don't have that luxury as a commander.

Simply because you don't know what happens the next hour or day.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

I think you do need to separate point value from rarity factor, as they are two different bits of information. I think you can't use one number to quantify both combat equivalence and overall rarity.

I believe that SL's rarity system had not only numbers like 1.6 for largish German tanks, but for very common vehicles it had numbers like 0.9 or even 0.8.

So I think that if rarity were factored in, the players really would have to make some interesting choices. The German player might not wish to purchase expensive heavy armor out of fear that the US player would buy a bunch of M4 Shermans and get extra due to their rarity factor of, say 0.8. On the other hand, the US player would have to carefully consider whether it would be worth paying the rarity cost to have all Sherman-76s...maybe it would be better to have M10s, or fewer 76s.

This might also induce the German player to actually buy some StuG III's, which were the most numerous AFV produced by Germany.

[Guest aaronb]

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

I think I've got you figured out now. That comment above was not a bluff... but the one about the jeep was.

Luckily for you, I never bluff.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! LMAO! You bluffed in our last game re: number of casualties from my artillery.

That means that your above statement is in and of itself a bluff. This would be the famous 'reverse-bluff' strategy I keep hearing about.

You're never boring - that's a good thing.

[Olle Petersson]

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

(I) What I meant is someone challenge you and sends a setup he does not tell you he will be the defender.

(II) Than you see when the game is well on its way that your opponent has instead of a normal inf company with ONE heavy weapons company, your opponent has two heavy weapon units or he has added 5 or 6 machineguns and many antitank weapons extra to his force.

(III) That is the main disadvantage of a QB or maybe even GAMEY tactic because in real life you don't have that luxury as a commander.

Simply because you don't know what happens the next hour or day.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>(I) That's what I call cheating! (But with a balanced force you shouldn't suffer a lot anyway, except that you might mismanage your time allowance.

(II) Regimental or divisional assets brought in to counter your force buildup on the other side of the frontline, not gamey at all.

(III) Of course you don't, but your superiors can (and hopefully will) supply you with the extra resources needed. Your attack has been anticipated perhaps weeks ahead...

But if it's your opponent that's been setting up the scenario and not mentioned it's supposed to be an attack by you, then it's as if your superiors been planning an attack but forgot to inform you about it. Instead they've only ordered you to advance a little.

Personally I prefer attacker/defender games, but it should be clearly stated beforehand who's who, and for QBs also all other chosen settings should be known to both players.

Cheers

Olle

[Johnno]

Olle: Send me my turn you lazy gomer and stop chatting with the ladys I have to take out some of my agression on your armor ya bum!

Johnno out

Visit my website:

Dogs of War http://persweb.direct.ca/johnnocm

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

- Private Jackson (The Snipers Prayer from Saving Private Ryan.)

[This message has been edited by Johnno (edited 11-13-2000).]

[Olle Petersson]

Johnno: Please do spank my armour so my infantry can chew up your troops undisturbed.

Reply will come this evening...

Cheers

Olle