Matches and Gasoline

[Chief]

Well, my previous post (On National Characteristics) was locked down faster than Alcatraz, but I did want to respond to a few of the responses.

On victory points. I'm not proposing that victory points simply reflect the relative abundance or scarcity of equipment. I'm proposing something more subtle: that the victory point system (either by purchasing values or an adjustment for victory point values) encourage players to build forces similar to their historical counterparts. I would not make a US 105 FO 1/2 or 1/4 the cost of a German equivalent, but I would try to adjust the relative values of US FOs and US infantry to take into account the relative scarcity of infantry and the relative abundance of FOs in the US force structure. Perhaps the VP structure already does this (although I don't see it yet), or perhaps this is too subtle to be worth doing, or perhaps this is not a big deal because most players don't use the point system to buy units), but that's my idea.

On doctrine and experience, I do think that small unit behavior in different armies tended to converge as units got experience. (And I also think that this was not always a good thing from a battalion CO perspective, and vets would tend not to do the dumb things that were sometimes required to serve higher unit objectives.) I still think, though, that some residue of training and doctrine adhered, even as experience levels mounted. This was the result of equipment influences (like building a squad around a single weapon such as an MG42) or deeply held tactical beliefs (like starting attacks with probes for weakness).

[PeterNZer]

While you have valid points on the different training and organisational structures, I'd say most here feel that in the end the experience system CM uses is really the best way of definning different qualities.

In the end, put two fairly evenly equiped and doctrined platoons opposite each other, in the end it will be the platoon who is most experienced that will win out.

I think to look at it just from those other factors is like saying "this is a great saw and drill and box of nails, it is innevitable that the house that is built will be fantastic". Put me behind them tho, and.. ah.. well, not the same result :>

Um

hope that made sense.

PeterNZ

ps. Opening closed topics up for debate makes Madmatt and co. kinda tetchy Watch out!

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

"I can be quite pleasant, you know" - Andreas

"WHERE'S THE MOAT?!" - Jon

[This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 12-15-2000).]

[Croda]

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

...On victory points. I'm not proposing that victory points simply reflect the relative abundance or scarcity of equipment. I'm proposing something more subtle: that the victory point system (either by purchasing values or an adjustment for victory point values) encourage players to build forces similar to their historical counterparts. I would not make a US 105 FO 1/2 or 1/4 the cost of a German equivalent, but I would try to adjust the relative values of US FOs and US infantry to take into account the relative scarcity of infantry and the relative abundance of FOs in the US force structure. Perhaps the VP structure already does this (although I don't see it yet), or perhaps this is too subtle to be worth doing, or perhaps this is not a big deal because most players don't use the point system to buy units), but that's my idea.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quick note on this -

If you were to gauge cost for all equipment based on actual availability, then in the late war years, it would cost 5,000 points to field a platoon of crack SS infantry (Yes, this is a gross exageration). The Germans would be so ridiculously outgunned as to remove all fun from the game. Point values are great. Playing a historically accurate OOB should be it's own reward. Who think's it's fun to field a platoon of Super Pershings against 3 Mk IVs? Not too much fun in my opinion.

In real war you want a cake-walk as opposed to a challenge. In a game, you can welcome the challenge, and the current system has challenge built in if you use it right, but not enforced for those who aren't interested.

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

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! -

THIS SIG FILE BELONGS TO A COMPLETE FOO.

MR T WOULDN'T BE SO KIND AS TO WRINKLE AN EYEBROW AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BEING. PLEASE OFFER HIS PARENTS AND COHABITANTS ALL SYMPATHY POSSIBLE. MAY BE CONTAGIOUS. CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER, INTELLIGENCE AND WIT. STAND WELL CLEAR AND LIGHT WICK. BY ORDER PETERNZ

Damn Croda. That is one funny sig!!!

must suck to be you - Hiram Sedai

[Polar]

To play Devils advocate, though, you'd have to say that the overwhelming number of people who choose to play Germany indicates that this balancing act has kind of failed.

THe ole' Catch 22 I guess... were Germany to field similar numbers of crack troops and THEIR Armor as the Allies, they would have won the war.

But it was their ill coceived production doctrine that, while it made some really nice tanks, over taxed their production and contirbuted heavily to their defeat.

Joe

[Chupacabra]

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

To play Devils advocate, though, you'd have to say that the overwhelming number of people who choose to play Germany indicates that this balancing act has kind of failed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there are two sides. Someone's got to play as the Germans, yes?

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Marlow]

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

To play Devils advocate, though, you'd have to say that the overwhelming number of people who choose to play Germany indicates that this balancing act has kind of failed.

Joe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree with your basic premise. For inexperienced players, the crutch of having heavy armor that you can do OK with by simply sitting out in the open may be appealing. However, with proper tactics, the sides are remarkably well balanced. In the limited number of PBEM battles that I have finished, 3 wins and 1 lose, all with Americans (and I am still relatively new at the game).

As for "most players prefering Germans," I have not seen that among the people I play. I actually prefer the Allies (nothing warms the heart like the sight of my Hellcat roaring by the burning scrap metal of Fortress Europa).

[This message has been edited by Marlow (edited 12-15-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

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

To play Devils advocate, though, you'd have to say that the overwhelming number of people who choose to play Germany indicates that this balancing act has kind of failed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I am 100% certain that statistical analysis will show that the distribution of sides played in PBEM/IP games is exactly 50% Allies and 50% Axis. Trust me.

Ooops, there goes your argument. What was the rest again?

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

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 12-15-2000).]