Doing some Numbers

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, I missed out on this thread until now. I have to say that I strongly disagree with the conclusions Bill has come up with, but do commend him for trying to do a thorough job. So here is the rebuttal and please excuse me for moving around some of Bill's thoughts to better organize my response...

Basic Premise

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it does. The Germans have a larger number of full auto weapons, including the kick ass MG42. So the per man average is higher. But take the MG42 out of the mix and you will find the German Squad takes a huge hit. And as for the price, the US man is CHEAPER than the counterpart German. This reflects the "better" weapons in a German Squad.

The Germans in fact reduced the number of men per squad as they increased their firepower. The original squad size was 10 men, but this was eventually reduced to 8. The same thing happened in their armored formations at a higher level. Less men and machines at the front, but a higher degree of firepower per man and machine. This allowed the German army to keep about the same FP as at the beginning of the war, but with less stuff shooting. It is the main reason why the German Army lasted as long as it did.

The only problem, and it is an obvious one, is that the Germans lost an important part of any military formation -> staying power. The lower headcount meant that they could withstand less overall military pressure than could larger units, like those fielded by the US.

The Myth of Higher FP = Better Unit

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are taking out one VERY important variable -> range. Doing this is not advisable as it makes for a warped view of what the unit is capable of. Example:

German Rifle 44

6xKar98

2xMP40

1xLMG42

Total firepower at Range 40m is 162

US Rifle (reduced to 9 men)

7xM1

1xThompson

1xBAR

Total firepower at range 40m is 170

So even though the US are short one SMG compared to the Germans, they still have MORE firepower even with the same number of men. At the next range level (100m) this same weapons mix gives the Germans only a 12% advantage, mostly because of the LMG42, which is about 2x the FP of the BAR at this range. Roughly the same thing happens at the next two combat ranges.

And if the LMG42 of the German squad is lost, a reduced US Squad can kick its ass at any range, not to mention a full sized one.

This was the problem with the Germans. The increase in firepower (squad or armored formation) usually meant that too many of their eggs were in too few baskets. If steady attrition took place, or they lost the key asset (like the MG42) they were in deep trouble vs. a force of similar quality and proportional size (i.e. attacker having 2:1 odds, etc.).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you back this statement up? It is a theory that has not been tested out so far, and I for one would strongly disagree with it. Heck, I lost a 9man ELITE Ger Rifle 44 Squad to a 12man GREEN US Rifle Squad in a recent PBEM game. I stumbled onto the US MRL at close range and was wiped out while only causing 3 casualties. The superior size of the US units gave it the advantage, and I lost something like 2 men right away. This made the US squad almost twice the size of mine. I got in a casualty, he got in another 2. I was wiped out after three rounds of this exchange.

Through other experience, I can say for sure that I will take a 12 man US Squad at 100m or less any day of the week. It is the better unit IMHO by far. At greater ranges I have to be careful of the LMG42 the enemy has, which is realistic, but I have other weapons to bear on them (like the inherent 60mm mortar for EACH squad that the Germans do not have). Which brings me to...

Company Mix

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, your figures only concern squads, but some of your conclusions are based on the exclusion of actually battlefield use. The truth is that a standard US Rifle Company has more firepower than a German one. True, the Germans get 2xHMG42s but the US gets 2x.30cal Brownings *AND* a .50cal HMG (which is a HEAVY DUTY weapon) *AND* 3xBazooka Teams *AND* 3x60mm Mortars. The latter provides a LOT of firepower and can really mess up the Germans on attack or defense (obviously better at defense). My point here is that US Rifle Squads were supposed to fight in concert with these extra weapons, which enhance and support the Rifle Squad's effectiveness. So in a true combined arms situation, the advantage goes to the US IMHO when two companies run head to head.

Mixing issues

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So, this fictitious commander is told to select from an available pool of troops. Unfortunately, our virtual pool contains 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, just like someone can buy that King Tiger instead of a MarkIVh or the Americans buying a Jumbo instead of a normal M4 variant. This issue has NOTHING to do with infantry or relative costs, but instead deal with "Rarity". This is something we are going to fix with CM2, but should not enter into ANY debate about costs and return since Rarity is not modeled in CM at all at the moment.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Would it not be unreasonable to assume, and were GIs not famous for, enhancing their TO&E?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is also mixing up stuff. If we did allow the US to have "enhanced TO&E" we would also increase their costs, which negates whatever point you were trying to make. The US Rifle 45 pattern does include an extra BAR, which was not officially allocated IIRC.

It is interesting to note that we have purposefully dumbed down the German TO&E, in some cases, to below established weapons allotments. This simulates the overall problems the Germans had with out fitting their units with the full official list of weapons. Also note that in the real war the Germans very often had over-established units in terms of small arms. So the Germans are actually worse off than the Americans with our abstracted squad layout.

Ammo Usage and Firepower

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a fundamental mistake on your part which largely negates much of what follows in your line of thinking about how FP, RoF, and ammo interact. You followed this statement by saying (out of order):

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thus, to have a higher FP, one must expend more rounds of ammo faster, thus creating a greater consumption of ammunition.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true at all. Firepower is also the ability of the weapon to be effective at the given range. This is independent of RoF, so therefore has nothing to do with ammo expenditure. Look at the stats. An SMG is only effective at short ranges, not because of RoF (which is a constant that has nothing to do with range), but because an SMG can't hit the broadside of a barn at longer ranges.

Also note that Firepower is also changed by the unit's experience level. This takes account of skilled aiming and effective use of the weapon in the given situation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the average US squad would be in the same boat as an SMG unit since ALL of their weapons are either semi-or full auto. We also do not allow weapons to fire at their max RoF, but instead simulate bursts and therefore lower RoF and lower ammo expenditures. So the fact is that the standard Rifle Squads for each nation, the German's has the lowest overall RoF, therefore using your theory the American Squad would have the highest rate of ammo consumption.

Conclusion

Looking at comperable units (US Rifle 44 and German Rifle 44), I conclude the following:

If Bill's position is that the Allied squads are not priced correctly vs. the Germans, I say that isn't so. If Bill thinks that the Allied squads are weaker, even if they are reduced to the same number of men, I disagree again. If Bill thinks that the firepower numbers for Allied units should have slower Ammo usage than the Germans, I once again disagree.

Basically, I disagree with everything except for the issue of "Rarity". But that is not something that is relevant to a discussion of cost:benefit, but rather constraints on the player outside of this narrow study.

Thanks!

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-02-2000).]

[Wilhammer]

All points well taken, and as I stated within my posts, some data was missing or not yet analyzed.

Further, I completely agree with you in the comparison of the 2 squads, the pattern 44s, but I also make the point that that particular German squad is one of the worst in the game.

Interestingly enough, this entire exercise was borne of a desire to have a "Buyer's Guide" for QBs for when I played the German side, as the selection of squads is daunting due to the huge variety.

The statistical disparity I may have detected in the Cost/FP analysis raises a valid concern, do you not agree?

Some quotes and responses.

"If Bill thinks that the firepower numbers for Allied units should have slower Ammo usage than the Germans, I once again disagree."

Steve, I gottat agree with you here. I did not consider the fact that GIs had semi-auto weapons. My argument though is that an SMG will expend bullets faster than a semi-automatic rifle, thus my feeling that SMG squads should expend "Ammo Points" faster, and since this reduces the number of available firing oppurtunities, then perhaps they should have smaller ammo loads due to a higher rate of consumption. Again, I do not know the innards of your game, and for all I know this does happen. I have not looked that closely.

"If Bill's position is that the Allied squads are not priced correctly vs. the Germans"...

That is my position, and it still is as long as the German QBer can choose from his pool without restriction or concern about historical availability. But, my point is that the German QBer has a vast pool of troops to choose from that makes it likely he will have the stronger force simply because he can maximise "bang for the buck".

In the same vein, "And if the LMG42 of the German squad is lost, a reduced US Squad can kick its ass at any range, not to mention a full sized one.", a circular argument as the GIs could loose the BAR guy. Also, this squad that is getting its ass kicked is the 18th worse squad in the German mix, mostly fitted with bolt action rifles. I'm worried about the more heavily armed guys in the top 10. The Best American squad to buy, overall, is not better in "statistically normalized" firepower than say a VG HVY SMG Squad or the Fallschimjaegers.

My comparison of cost vs FP was not a comparison to one squad type, but to the entire available pool of German Squads and MG teams available for purchase by the QBer

thus illustrating how difficult it SEEMS for the American or Biritsh player to buy a equal force when you consider the choices the German player has.

I agree with the way you priced the units in CM based on equipment, but the cost does not take into account the actual availabilty of these troops.

"Basically, I disagree with everything except for the issue of "Rarity". But that is not something that is relevant to a discussion of cost:benefit, but rather constraints on the player outside of this narrow study."

Ahh, but this is the entire underlying point of this discussion. My ultimate point is that the German player purchasing for a QB has some very effective purchases he can make that can devestate under the right circumstances. Imagine taking on the SMG squads in the streets or dense woods? The Americans have no squad with that kind of firpower at short range, and my study illustrates the need for....Rarity! The "Final Answer".

How likely are there to bo some Fallguys or German Alpine troops? If they are in the sector, sure, but they were not everywhere.

Is it safe to say that the prevalent German Squad type was somthing similar, if not, the pattern 44s and 45s?

I agree wholeheartidly with your FP values for the units. Many a GI history or battle history points out that some German units were devestating to encounter simply because they were better equipped, better trained, and more highly motivated. Have I not read that some German Regimental size units had as much direct firepower as any Allied Division?

And finally,

In my first post, I asked "Does this seem about right?" becuase I did not really know. Obviously, the only way to get the absolute best handle on this is throught doing a firepower/cost analysis down to the individual weapon.

My analysis was based on the raw firpwer values as reported in CM at ranges 40m, 100m, 250m, 500m, 1000m. The formula used to generate the "normalized value" was to calculate avg. FPs in ranges 40m-250, 40m-500m, 40m-1000m, Averaged those averages, and then averaged this weighted average to all the averages, thus minimizing "spikes".

However, this does mire the details in statistical averages, so a weapon by weapon analysis is in order.

First, I will play some CM and take all of your points into account, and see what happens on the field.

But again, the point is that the German can make some ahistorical choices in purchasing units that at least SEEMS to provide him with an unfair advantage in making the "Cost:Benefit" choices any good manager must make.

Thanks for a great game and a well written rebuttal.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Bill,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Further, I completely agree with you in the comparison of the 2 squads, the pattern 44s, but I also make the point that that particular German squad is one of the worst in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they are in fact the only two that are comparable. I mean, if you were comparing the fairness of armor costs, you would not take an M4 and compare it to a King Tiger as if all else were equal

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Interestingly enough, this entire exercise was borne of a desire to have a "Buyer's Guide" for QBs for when I played the German side, as the selection of squads is daunting due to the huge variety.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Imagine how we felt doing the research and coding for this stuff? Fun on the one hand, tedious and frustrating on the other.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The statistical disparity I may have detected in the Cost/FP analysis raises a valid concern, do you not agree?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, otherwise I wouldn't have responded in detail and instead just pointed out one or two things and let it go at that. But I wanted to make sure there weren't problems.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve, I gottat agree with you here. I did not consider the fact that GIs had semi-auto weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The M1 Garand is the finest rifle in the game, second finest (IMHO) personal weapon (MP44 getting my top pick )

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My argument though is that an SMG will expend bullets faster than a semi-automatic rifle, thus my feeling that SMG squads should expend "Ammo Points" faster, and since this reduces the number of available firing opportunities, then perhaps they should have smaller ammo loads due to a higher rate of consumption. Again, I do not know the innards of your game, and for all I know this does happen. I have not looked that closely.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ammo expenditure is abstracted, so I am not going to say CM simulates this perfectly. However, SMGs fire in bursts, and not full trigger, most of the time. Therefore, the difference between the 8 shot M1 and the 30 shot MP40 is not significant. Except for close in fighting.

Put two squads about 20m apart and see what happens. Ammo counts drop dramatically. This simulates unloading, which is precalculated into the FP for that range. That is why SMGs are so damned effective at 40m and under. However, ammo usage soars.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That is my position, and it still is as long as the German QBer can choose from his pool without restriction or concern about historical availability.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct, but these "better" units are also more expensive per man as you yourself have calculated. So the cost of the unit is not out of line, rather the lack of restrictions (however this is done) allows for ahistorical unit mixes. Different issues.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But, my point is that the German QBer has a vast pool of troops to choose from that makes it likely he will have the stronger force simply because he can maximize "bang for the buck".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not a foregone conclusion that the German player can select a more powerful mix vs. the US when numbers of men are calculated. I for one always tend to buy more than better. I am a good tactician, but even a good tactician finds it difficult to do more with less. I like to do more with more I almost always buy Volksgrenadier (when available) or Rifle 44/45. I never buy any of the other stuff because it is too expensive for my tastes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the same vein, "And if the LMG42 of the German squad is lost, a reduced US Squad can kick its ass at any range, not to mention a full sized one.", a circular argument as the GIs could loose the BAR guy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But since the Germans have fewer men, they are more likely to lose the LMG than the US a BAR since the chance of picking up the squad weapon, once the man with it is hit, largely depends on how many men are left in the squad.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, this squad that is getting its ass kicked is the 18th worse squad in the German mix, mostly fitted with bolt action rifles. I'm worried about the more heavily armed guys in the top 10. The Best American squad to buy, overall, is not better in "statistically normalized" firepower than say a VG HVY SMG Squad or the Fallschimjaegers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But now you are comparing apples to oranges. Sure, the VG HVY SMG squad kicks ass, as does the King Tiger. But you can not compare the two because they are different beasts. And something like the VG HVY SMG unit also has its downsides, just like the King Tiger.

First of all, here are only two of these HVY SMG squads per Company, and they only have 8 men vs. the US 12. So my point about attrition is even more valid here. On top of that the 4 SMG squads are equal to a US squad at 100m and can't do jack squat over that. Of course, at 40m they totally devastate.

The trick here is, as I discussed in my previous post, about tactical use. If the German SMG formations are attacked at a distance what good is their extra FP? They aren't some über unit. They have their limitations and weaknesses, and in fact they are pretty severe.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My comparison of cost vs FP was not a comparison to one squad type, but to the entire available pool of German Squads and MG teams available for purchase by the QBer thus illustrating how difficult it SEEMS for the American or Biritsh player to buy a equal force when you consider the choices the German player has.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The trick for the Allies is to buy more and play smarter. Same goes for armor too, as one King Tiger can defeat many Allied tanks if used incorrectly. But if the Germans lose that one KT...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I agree with the way you priced the units in CM based on equipment, but the cost does not take into account the actual availability of these troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. But they are separate issues.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ahh, but this is the entire underlying point of this discussion. My ultimate point is that the German player purchasing for a QB has some very effective purchases he can make that can devestate under the right circumstances.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but those choices cost more.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Imagine taking on the SMG squads in the streets or dense woods? The Americans have no squad with that kind of firpower at short range, and my study illustrates the need for....Rarity! The "Final Answer".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, superior tactics does a fine job too. I am currently playing a German player in a meeting engagement. I expect to soundly kick his butt. I bought standard US Rifle infantry (what choice did I have ) and he appears to have bought a mix of the types of units you appear to fear. He also bought a heavier mix of vehicles. I bought more infantry and artillery, and he is hurting badly from what I can tell. I've only taken about 8 casualties due to some artillery, as far as I can tell he has lost at least a full platoon. And it looks like I started out with a platoon more than he did. So I figure I have him 2:1 on infantry, and I hold all the objectives.

So the lack of a Rarity system hasn't hurt me one bit. I bought a better mix of units than he did, and I am making him pay dearly as far as I can tell.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is it safe to say that the prevalent German Squad type was somthing similar, if not, the pattern 44s and 45s?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The two most common formations for the German Heer are Pattern 44/45 (one replaced the other, but there is a little overlap) and Volksgrenadiers. Waffen SS would be Rifle and probably Motorized.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I agree wholeheartedly with your FP values for the units. Many a GI history or battle history points out that some German units were devestating to encounter simply because they were better equipped, better trained, and more highly motivated. Have I not read that some German Regimental size units had as much direct firepower as any Allied Division?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't agree with this except that average German unit had more firepower in their hands than the Allied counterpart. Some of their small arms were vastly superior, others were on a par, while the "backbone" (Kar98k) should have been phased out of frontline use by 1944. German equipment other than that was adequate to very poor, partly to declining production standards.

As for the comparison of firepower at the Divisional level, I am not sure what you said is correct, but if it there was extrapolation that had the non-combatants of the US division figured in, it could be. Germans had almost a 1:1 ratio of fighting:support men in their divisions by 1944/45. US was something like 1:3 IIRC. So a LOT more men, but less in fighting positions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In my first post, I asked "Does this seem about right?" because I did not really know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, now you have some more food for thought

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But again, the point is that the German can make some ahistorical choices in purchasing units that at least SEEMS to provide him with an unfair advantage in making the "Cost:Benefit" choices any good manager must make.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, as I have touched upon... the German player has more choices to make, and therefore he has more flexibility. However, I do not see this translating, directly, into an advantage. There are tradeoffs. One of them is that the MOST number of men per squad he is every going to get is 10, but the likely number will be 9. At the very least this means that for every 3 Squads the Germans have the US has 4 Squads of manpower, costs not being taken into account.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thanks for a great game and a well written rebuttal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-02-2000).]

[PeterNZer]

I think the Allies and the Germans are about even. And I'm pleased to see the allies have the advantage clos up as Steve pointed out. Those semi automatics can just pour out mor fire than the bolt action rifles. And I know if I was facing semis and I had a bolt action I'd be feeling mighty nervous.

One thing people might want to try is using half squads on the assault.. Sounds weird but it works really well. (well did when i tried it back in gold demo hehe). The times I've used it I've had a platoon scouting forward, come across some germans and then move to envelop them. In the end you have two good sized groups of men firring at one group of Germans, and the best thing is you can get them from two directions at once. This seems to really cut into them much more than a full sized squad from one direction. (they don't like it up 'em Capt. Manering!)

Not sure on this really. I mean, they have a worse time with morale if they start loosing and all.. hmm. But the numbers advantage is usefull here! Tried scouting with halfsquads of germans? They run like girls as soon as someone looks at them funny, 4-5 men per squad, ouch.

PeterNZ - rambling as usual

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That is my position, and it still is as long as the German QBer can choose from his pool without restriction or concern about historical availability. But, my point is that the German QBer has a vast pool of troops to choose from that makes it likely he will have the stronger force simply because he can maximise "bang for the buck".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the conclusion have come too also.

If I can rephrase it as I see it: The Germans have a much wider variety of squad types to chose from, thus they can "Cherry Pick" the best type for the particular quick battle.

For example: If its fog/night QB how many of us pick German SMG squads over the 'standard rifle' squads most of the time? What about when you know the terrain will be city or heavy woods and large hills? The US player does not have this luxury.

But, other than removing historically accurate OOBs from the game (totally unacceptable IMO) I don't see a solution.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 10-03-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton:

This is the conclusion have come too also.

If I can rephrase it as I see it: The Germans have a much wider variety of squad types to chose from, thus they can "Cherry Pick" the best type for the particular quick battle.

For example: If its fog/night QB how many of us pick German SMG squads over the 'standard rifle' squads most of the time? What about when you know the terrain will be city or heavy woods and large hills? The US player does not have this luxury.

But, other than removing historically accurate OOBs from the game (totally unacceptable IMO) I don't see a solution.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh come on Scott -- I did not buy any SMG units at all...

[ahauschild]

True True, but the germans did have lots of choices. I am sure the Battalion Comander would have chosen SMG units to cover the woods or town, while the mostly Carbine armed troops would have been assigned to locations where their longer range fire was better utilized. The fact is that germans had a flare for designing specilized units for almost every task, no matter if it was infantry, Armor, or Aircraft. No other country has as many modified vehicles and infantry types as the germans. This was a bit of a handycap also, because of the large amount of different troop and armor types they did never manage to build any one in large enough numbers.

[Wilhammer]

On PAPER they had a lot of choices.

In reality, they were lucky to get what they got due to the fact they were mostly on the run, under air interdiction, and the "over-specialization" bug.

The over specialisizing of the Wermacht provided many pitfalls...favorite formations and commanders would get the better stuff. This same over specializing also contributed to logistical problems caused by favoritism to supply "targets" and the need to supply a large army with a huge diversity in weapons systems. With CM, we are all provided the oppurtunity to be the "favored" commander or formation. The truth in the war was very few could get this favoritism.

The problem for the CMer, is that in a given situation, a German company or battalion commander DID NOT get to choose, he GOT what was available. the Americans were under the a similar constraint, but its use of standardized equipment and air superiority contributed to this being a significantly less problem than it was for the German.

The solution is to provide for a Rarity Option as is promised for CM2.

What I have not heard is;

Will this be retrofitted into CM:BO?

If not, then for the historically minded gamer, we will have to modify our QBs with some house rules.

In recognition that many CMers are non wargamers but just gamers, the use of Rarity as an Option should satisfy them.

The weakest point of CM right now, in my opinion, is that the QB system is lacking in Historical Simulation Quality.

It is excellent for its TO&E/Diversity Simulation Quality.

The rest of CM is outstanding in it's representation of History.

[R-Man]

I’m afraid that this discussion has gotten a little off track from Wilhammer’s original premise; that there are inconsistencies in the point system related to infantry, oftentimes resulting in the German infantry platoons having more bang for the buck.

For example, in a November 1944 Quick Battle, the Americans have the ubiquitous Rifle Platoon available for 120 points. It has total firepower ratings (abstractions?) of 674, 338 and 144 at ranges of 40 m, 100 m and 250 m, respectively. Compare this to the Panzer Grenadier Platoon at the similar cost of 129 points. It has firepower ratings of 794, 472 and 232 at the same ranges. Based on firepower/points, the American’s are at a 91.3%, 77.0% and 66.7% disadvantage at the three ranges, respectively.

This discrepancy is not limited to just the Americans. When comparing Engineer Platoons to Pioneers, the Germans are on the short end of the stick, having 73.2%, 96.6% and 119.5% at 40 m, 100 m, and 250 m. The German flamethrowers are at a disadvantage in range as well.

The point I’m trying to make is simple; all things being equal (supply, rarity, cost of equipment, etc.), the cost of infantry should be based on relative firepower to a greater degree than it seems to be now.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I don't think we got off the track at all. I read, and accept Steve's responses/rebuttal.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The point I’m trying to make is simple; all things being equal (supply, rarity, cost of equipment, etc.), the cost of infantry should be based on relative firepower to a greater degree than it seems to be now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, this is where you and I (and Steve) disagree. As Steve indicated 'staying power' (and other factors) are not being considered when you use a simple FP/pts calculation.

Frankly, I have had much better luck with my infantry in almost every battle when I have US infantry. Perhaps it is my playing style and perhaps a similar reason can be stated why others have had better luck with German infantry.

I simply tend to think that when you can tailor you forces to a specific QB as the Germans it gives them an advantage.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> On PAPER they had a lot of choices.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this is my position. Considering the scale of CM the player (representing the company commander) would have no choice as to his units to fight in each 20-30 minute engagement. A commander could not simply decide to have SS troopers here and Volks there and Heer rifleman over there. It simply did not work that way IMO.

Slapdragon: Since when do you need to "Cherry Pick" to beat me?

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 10-03-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 10-03-2000).]