Doing some Numbers

Wilhammer · September 30, 2000

Using the CM Unit Database by gauchi as a starting point, I have put together some quick data sheets both for handy in battle reference and for purchasing for QBs.

During the purchasing analysis, I made some observations:

1. A US soldier costs about 15% less than each German soldier, but has about 26% less firepower than the German soldier. Soldier means per man.

2. A US Infantry Unit (Squad or MG Team) costs about 14.4% more per unit of Firepower than a German Unit.

For each equivalent purchase of infantry units, the Americans will have more individual soldiers on the Field, but fewer combat units, and just 74% of the German firepower per man, 85.6% FP per Squad.

Except for Airborne, US squads have 12 men, and all with an average FP of 8.85 per man at a cost of 3.4 pts per man.

German Squads have, on average, 9.1 men per Squad with an Average FP of 11.98 per man at a cost of 4.715 pts per man.

Does this sound about right?

Slapdragon · September 30, 2000

That sound close to what I am seeing with tanks. German units are about 10% cheaper when comparing firepower, about 5% cheaper when comparing mobility, and about even in artillery depending on how you factor shoot times -- with most of the recent discussion tending to make the US less powerful per point since the HMG mounting vehicles are the only place this does not hold true. I should note that this is if you assume that each unit uses tungsten. As the earlier tungsten thread discussed, US tanks will refuse to use it unless seriously over matched (KT vs Sherman) and only use it extremely infrequently, if at all. -- so for tanks it could be even worse.

These factors disapeer on operations were US units get more ammo.

September 30, 2000

Bump, because I for one would like to hear some other opinions on this one.

Fernando · September 30, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer:

Except for Airborne, US squads have 12 men, and all with an average FP of 8.85 per man at a cost of 3.4 pts per man.

German Squads have, on average, 9.1 men per Squad with an Average FP of 11.98 per man at a cost of 4.715 pts per man.

Does this sound about right?

If your numbers are right then you get an average FP of 2.603 (8.85/3.4) for every point expended on American soldiers and an average FP of 2.541 (11.98/4.715) for every point expended on German soldiers. It seems you get more American than German firepower for every expended point (about 2%)

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 09-30-2000).]

Wilhammer · September 30, 2000

Hope this works.

I have pasted in the summary data for the analysis worksheet.

Fernando, my oversimplification of the data in my first post produces an anomaly. Please review this post.

"I" type Units are squads.

"S" type units are MGs.

<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>CMAnalysisSummary</TITLE>

</HEAD>

<TR VALIGN="bottom"><TD ALIGN="right"> </TD><TD ALIGN="center" COLSPAN=5>Average Cost per Unit Firepower Comparison</TD>

<TD ALIGN="center" COLSPAN=3>Per Man Comparisons</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Relative FP Cost Analysis Summary</TD>

<TD ALIGN="left">Avg Man Count</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="right">German I</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="right">German S</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="right">Overall</TD>

</TR>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="right">American I</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="right">American S</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="right">Overall</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="right">American I Premium</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="right">American S Premium</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="right">American Overall Premium</TD>

</TR>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="right">British I</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="right">British S</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="right">Overall</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="right">British I Premium</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="right">British S Premium</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="right">British Overall Premium</TD>

</TR>

</Table>

Last Updated on 9/30/00

By Bill Wood

</BODY>

</HTML>

[This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 09-30-2000).]

Wilhammer · September 30, 2000

Sorry for th huge space in recent post. I've tried, but I cannot remove it.

Wolfe · September 30, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer:

Sorry for th huge space in recent post. I've tried, but I cannot remove it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you get rid of all the carriage returns in between HTML commands, this will remove the extra spacing.

- Chris

Vanir · September 30, 2000

That's very interesting. Great work Wilhammer. Now we know why the Germans are so popular, I think. At least in CM.

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

So maybe you should listen to this Vanir guy instead of ignoring him -- he has the best take on the whole thing. - Combatboy

Slapdragon · September 30, 2000

I have that Excel from Bill, and am working on one for tanks based on a number of factors. So far it is this way for tanks also.

In QBs it may be useful to let Allies have 110% of Infantry money at least, or reduce the cost of artillery (something I favor).

September 30, 2000

Just a stab in the dark, but that's what I am good at: could it be that the fact that soldiers die or are rendered incapable is factored into the unit cost? For every guy the Germans lose, they lose more FP than the Americans. So after a five-minute firefight, chances are the US squad looks much better than the German, because they will have more guys around. That's what I find in my games at least.

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

Andreas

Slapdragon · September 30, 2000

I think that is why the factor is different. I do not think BTS said: lets screw the Americans. But since the last tank standing is usually a German heavy, and since long range HE tank fire kills multiple people, I think it is over modelled.

Now, add that to the people who I know in the list wont play Americans. The people I play with switch sides on a regular basis, but some people have learned it is much more stressful to win with US. Brits are easier because if their tanks.

Wilhammer · September 30, 2000

On the face of it, a German squad looks vulnerable to rapid degradation due to a loss of a man compared to a GI.

In fact, the Firepower of a German squad is so much higher, they inflict casualties quicker, and soon the man count can become quite even.

The best defense is a strong offense.

Mark IV · September 30, 2000

Doesn't the cost/FP of the German squad reflect the (nearly) omnipresent Panzerfaust? Or did you control for this?

[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 09-30-2000).]

Wilhammer · September 30, 2000

Firepwoer values concern only small arms, MGs.

No other weapons are included.

Americans have rifle Grenades, so as an anti-infantry weapon, this should be about equal to a PF.

An American 44 Rifle squad has 209 FP at 40 meters, 10M1s at 130FP, 1 SMG at 44 FP and 1 Bar at 35 FP.

A German 44 Squad has 6 K98 Bolt Action Rifles at 39 FP, 2 MP40 at 72 FP and 1 MG42 at 50 FP for a total FP of 161 at a range of 40 meters.

BTW, the German 44 squad is one of the worst FP rated squads in the game.

At a range of 40m, it ranks at number 18 in a list of the 21 different German squad types.

Here is the list in an Excel Converted HTML table.<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>German Squad FP Ranking</TITLE></HEAD><BODY><H1><CENTER>German Squad FP Ranking</CENTER></H1><Table border>

<TR VALIGN="bottom"><TD ALIGN="left">Fusilier SMG Squad</TD><TD ALIGN="right">324</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Gebirgsjaeger Pioneer Squad</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Gebirgsjaeger Squad</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Volksgrenadier SMG Squad</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Fallschirmjaeger Pioneer Squad</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Fallschirmjaeger Squad</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Sturmgruppe Squad</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Volksgrenadier Hvy SMG Squad</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Fusilier Squad</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Panzergrenadier Pioneer Squad</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Motorized Infantry Squad</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Panzergrenadier Squad</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Volkssturm Squad</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Sicherung (Security) Squad</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Rifle 45 Squad (German)</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Volksgrenadier Squad</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Escort Squad</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Rifle 44 Squad (German)</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Motorized Pioneer Squad</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Rifle Pioneer Squad</TD>

</TR>

<TD ALIGN="left">Volksgrenadier Pioneer Squad</TD>

</TR>

</Table>

Last Updated on 9/30/00

By Bill Wood

</BODY>

</HTML>

[This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 09-30-2000).]

Wilhammer · September 30, 2000

Excel's convertor and its interaction with UBB...dang it.

What does a CM QB simulate?

A company command gets an order to go to this place and do something, and they have a choice of forces, know what the terrain is generally like, and know what size the enmy force could be.

So, this fictitious commander is told to select from an available pool of troops. Unfortunately, our virtual pool contaains 21 different types of German Squads, among other things. This means that in a scenario a German QB purchaser could buy the best knowing that it is ahistorically available.

This study is by no means complete. How even is the situation when the selection of forces is limited, say the German can only get Heer? Is the available pool of infantry more even? I do not yet know.

Vanir · September 30, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer:

. How even is the situation when the selection of forces is limited, say the German can only get Heer? Is the available pool of infantry more even?

After doing some calculator work of my own, I think the answer is: not much. Under Heer the Germans can still puchase Motorised infantry which are second only to Fallsguys in FP/point at 100m, 4.26 vs. 4.44 when puchased at the company level. This compares to 3.52 for Inf Squad '44 and 3.28 for regular US (once again, at the company purchase prices, since thats what I usually buy).

I agree with Slappy that this was probably intentional. However, I to wonder if this doesn't go too far with elite units. No wonder people were complaining a while back about Fallsguys being used in every game.

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

So maybe you should listen to this Vanir guy instead of ignoring him -- he has the best take on the whole thing. - Combatboy

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 09-30-2000).]

Vanir · September 30, 2000

Ok, some quick numbers. Others will post in more detail I'm sure, but this should give a good general idea.

This is the PF/purchase point for units purchases at the company level (Stormtoopers are only purchasable at company level), at 100m, regular troops.

Germans:

Inf Squad '44: 3.52

SS Squad: 3.7

Stormtroopers: 4.0

Gerbils: 4.0

Motorized: 4.26

Fallsguys: 4.44

Amis:

Regular: 3.28

Glider: 3.4

Paratroops: 3.52

Brits:

Reg: 3.3

Glider: 3.5

Para: 3.63

Conclusions:

The best American unit is equal to the worst German unit.

British are slightly better than Americans.

British paras are the only Allied unit better than the worst Germans.

Elite Germans are much more elite than elite allies, even compared to baseline Germans

Fallsguys are da ****

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

So maybe you should listen to this Vanir guy instead of ignoring him -- he has the best take on the whole thing. - Combatboy

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 09-30-2000).]

Wilhammer · September 30, 2000

Experience vs. official TO&E.

Would it not be unreasonable to assume, and were GIs not famous for, enhancing their TO&E?

If a bunch of veteran or crack GIs realize they are going into town for some close in fighting, don't you think they would beef up the Bar and SMG supplies?

In afuture version of CM, perhaps we could have flexible TO&Es thar are "more" flexible based on the Nationality, its expereince and the situation?

After all, many a US unit was quite well equipped with a new addition to its TO&E, the captured Panzerfaust.

October 1, 2000

Wilhammer's observation about the American knack for scrounging leads me to another question. So far, you seem to only be comparing squads, which is interesting in its own right, but overlooks the distribution of company support weapons. How does that effect the equation? How much FP bang for the buck do you get when comparing whole companies?

Michael

Wilhammer · October 1, 2000

The Company thing is a whole other project that will take some time.

However, if you look at my data and then see how it was processed into what I posted, mathematically, it will not mean a thing in relative differences of a potential parallel Cost/FP analysis.

This is an exercise in relative firepower of weapons systems and their costs, so since I limit FP to small arms and MGs, and only concern myself with Squads and MG teams, I feel this is analysis enough, and any magnification in increasing the formation size would essentially "wash" out.

However, when I can make the time, I will take the data I have that is the basis of the analysis, make spreadsheet representations of the Platoons and Companies, and another comparative analysis.

I feel the Germans will come out slighly better still as they have the most awesome team weapon in the game, and lots of them, the Heavy MG 42.

I have thought of another point;

All squads carry 40 "units" of ammo.

German units on average have about 25-30% greater firepower.

FP is a direct function of the amount of lead, or number of bullets that can be placed on a target. This is at least 95% directly related to ROF.

This means then, that the German units carry a lot more ammo around than the Americans do.

About 30-40% per squad more.

I bet a SMG squad would go through a similar pile of Ammo that a US 44 squad would go through at least twice as fast.

The German squads have fewer men, so less ammo carriers. With the average squad of Germans being 9.1, and the US being 11.6, a roughly 20% difference---well, them German troops must have some mighty big and strong backs to carry approximately 50% more ammo than a GI can.

I postulate that due to the high ROF weapons the German squads have, the abstracted 40 units of ammo per squad (A time abstraction for the most part) may be too generous when compared to less FP units.

I am aware that the weapons deliver their bullets at different velocities and sizes, as well as accuracy, but if you think for a moment, comparing the two sides' weapons really means that FP is almost a 1:1 correlation with ROF.

Thus, to have a higher FP, one must expend more rounds of ammo faster, thus creating a greater consumption of ammunition.

Slapdragon · October 1, 2000

The ammo of course is an abstraction, unlike the tanks. But your point is well displayed and thought out.

Old Dog · October 1, 2000

*Bump*

I too am beginnning to feel that for whatever reason the Americans got a shorter stick to wack with than the Germans, and as someone who nearly always plays as Allies I'm curious what BTS's take on this is...

Amazing that when there is talk on the board about decreasing Sherman prices to reflect their commonality, there are cries that the game needs to stay finely "balanced". Seems that perhaps the "balance" is leaning toward the Axis a bit currently.

- Old Dog

Ron · October 1, 2000

Playing with numbers and comparisons is fine as is drawing your own conclusions but that really isn't what CM is all about. It's a game simulating WWII tactical combat. It's you commanding your troops to take that hill or that village, or defend it. It's about using terrain to interdict and control enemy avenues of approach and to conceal your troops. It's about using combined arms and fire/maneuver to engage and destroy the enemy and his ability to fight. It's about using what you have to accomplish your mission. The above statements hold true and are effective whether you are playing the UK, US or the Germans. I haven't found otherwise and neither have my opponents.

To imply the German forces have some sort of inherent edge because of a 25% FP or 15% cost premium from some data table is having blinkers on, but to each his own I guess. There's a tournament in progress at the RD site, Brits versus Germans in a meeting engagement. Out of 57 games completed so far, the British side has won 32 games and the Germans 25. Perhaps the Brits have some advantage that no one's discovered yet?

[This message has been edited by Ron (edited 10-01-2000).]

Slapdragon · October 1, 2000

It is possible the Brits do have an advantage --I do know a few of the "German-Only" players who refuse US will play Brits if forced. My bet though is that they are more even than US. Some of the disadvantages of US are certainly absent in UK troops.

What they are saying is that for QBs -- the deck leans slightly toward the Axis in both tank power and people power. Not that it leans all the way or that it is impossible to win or that it was done on purpose, just that you can buy more and better Axis, and with US arty so dear and airpower never an option in all but the largest QBs you could probably raise your chances of winning by always taking AXIS.

Slapdragon · October 2, 2000

I need to stress here for people who missed it is that Bill's tables are completely about cost per firepower point and not about historical capability. An increase in capability by modelling the MP44 as heavier, or giving whole squads MP44s as was the case in Heer units, should result in an increase of value for game balancing.

Bill's formual is useful for people who play competition QBs and design scenarios -- US Infantry by firepower against other infantry is about 10% overpriced. This may or may not extend to tanks -- which is a far more complex issue, but is displayed fairly well in Bill's proof.

Also I should note that combat ability versus other unit types would make this even more glaring a difference, since the US Rifle grenades are far less capable than Panzerfausts.

Doing some Numbers

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest ACTOR

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Germanboy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Michael emrys

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites