Unit costs & fairness when gaming

[Jumbo]

I know that this may have talked about before. It needs to be talked about again -it seems. Searches don't seem to help. The ranting is just too deep to have to wade through.

Ok, after a fair amount of PBEM & TCP play, my friend & I have noticed a marked uneveness in the forces that face each other. This is whether the AI chooses the units or they are purchased by the player -based on the CM unit cost system. The German player always ends up with a whole lot more battlefield assets than the allied player.

An example: In a 1500 pt. Meeting Engagement QB, I was able to purchase:

*Veteran*

2 Panther Gs (late)

2 Pz IVHs

2 Stuh42s (late)

1 Ostwind

1 Wirbelwind

1 Hummel

*Regular*

2 SPW 234/1 ACs

As the Americans, all he was able to purchase:

6 Veteran M4A3(76)W+s

They may all add up to the same amount of points, but the two forces facing each other are no way evenly matched. In a friendly ME game, they should be evenly matched. The American force was eventually defeated, BTW.

It seems that for a 2000 point QB, the Americans need 500 points and the British need 100 points just to even it up. We go by the CM unit cost system, thinking it is fair, but it simply isn't. I don't believe that I'm missing something here. ?

Does anyone else use a similar system?

Thanks for your help.

Jumbo

[Stoffel]

Why don't you create your own battles with the scenario editor?

In that way you can choose a force of your own choice without bothering about the points.

It works the same as a quick battle.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

I tend to think that the CM point system is very fair, although, admittedly, I tend not to play all armor battles. Perhaps your opponent didn't choose his forces wisely. He could have had 9 regular M4A1(76)W shermans, for example, or six veteran M4A1(76)W shermans, plus one vet Jumbo 76, or he could have chosen 4 vet pershings plus a veteran m10 (if you weren't playing the rule of 76), or 10(!) veteran hellcats plus a regular M8 HMC, or (and I'd love to see this battle) 15 regular chaffees.

So it doesn't strike me as being a system that is particularly unfair the the Americans.

[von Lucke]

Yah, I've had this discussion with a couple of PBEM opponents. The QB's are in no way historical or fair in their recreation of forces. The Germans allways end up with a numerical superiority in rolling stock. Best way to counter it is to only play Probe or Attack QB's (with the Allies attacking), or give the Allied player an +10% - +25% Handicap.

[Jumbo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke:

Yah, I've had this discussion with a couple of PBEM opponents. The QB's are in no way historical or fair in their recreation of forces. The Germans allways end up with a numerical superiority in rolling stock. Best way to counter it is to only play Probe or Attack QB's (with the Allies attacking), or give the Allied player an +10% - +25% Handicap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm with you von Lucke! It is really deceptive to think that you'll get an evenly matched quick battle in a QB.

The other suggestion regarding the use of the creation of a scenario has a little problem. In a QB, your opponents exact OOB is unknown -just like in a real battle. It seems that the fog-of-war won't extend that far when you create a scenario. I believe that it would require a third party like Fionn uses.

Maybe BTS would like to start a CM scenario service? It might be easier to just make the purchasing of units more balanced.

Jumbo