An idea for TH balance

[Wreck]

Here's an idea I have been using a bit to make TH more even wrt German/Allies balance.

When you start a game, offer the opponent Germans if he is lower rated than you. Then (regardless of the outcome), the loser may challenge the winner to a repeat engagement using the same QB params, reversing only the sides played. Of course the repeat may take a while to happen, but in time things should even out.

One nice thing about this system is, you do not have to explain it to newbies to use it. Just check the rating before playing, and offer them Germans (typically). If they lose, which is probable, a repeat is not needed since they will certainly lose w/ allies.

The best part of this system, though, is that (if it gets used) it prevents any highly rated player from getting there using only the Germans.

I hereby extend this offer to all comers.

Abbott: if we ever do finish our game (I will not forget, BTW), then at least you have the consolation of a repeat engagement to try to recover some points. Meanwhile, I wonder to see your victory total mount. What about finishing with me?

[Abbott]

Hiya Wreck. My time recently has been all spent in front of a computer working (as I told you via e-mail) However I am keeping up on my PBEM games due to the fact I have a home office to work from much of the time. Let's finish it up PBEM as I have spent very little time in the chat rooms of late.

The Axis forces are tough yes but our forces have not even engaged yet. Your offers of consolation and/or letting you have a total victory are premature, it is turn ten. Your post where you said, "I will not forget BTW" You are saying you will not forget to send the turn I asked for last week, correct?

[This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 03-26-2001).]

[KiwiJoe]

Wreak are you saying that Axis is the better side to play?

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

When you say "Axis", do you mean defense as well?

I don't think this is a good idea in either case. To defeat either side, you need to know its units. To get that experience, you need to play both sides.

If people agree that the Germans have a clear advance, just agree that they spend 10% or 15% less points.

Or develop a scheme where some units are counted as more expensive than CMBO makes them, i.e. raise SMG squads by 2 points each.

Jason Cawley had some thoughtful suggestions in the thread about "cost of infantry" (I think).

[Pacestick]

Wreck

Said like the true gentleman you are

[Wreck]

KiwiJoe: yes, the Germans are better side to play. It is possible, I think, to at least reduce their advantage by careful choice of scenario parameters. But generally, they have some unmatched bargains in each arm:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

Pure SMG infantry

Leaders to spare

Cheap effective guns

Jpz IV/70, Panther

The allies have bargains too. But they don't get the Volks and they are always tight on leaders.

Incidentally, I recommend playing in Oct 44 or before, with player agreement to select in setup the two forces to be used. This does result in the allies not being able to use British glider troops with American SP guns and Brit tanks. But it also gets rid of the German SMG horde, for the most part, and it much more realistic to boot. (Yes I know there were times when all sorts of unusual combos happened, but 90% of the time they didn't.)

Martin: I don't know that the German advantage level is 10%, though after Nov '44 I would guess that it is. Your suggested fixes are ways to deal with the problem, but I think they while they are superior in many ways, they require more explaining and agreement about the facts of unit costs than my method.

The best way for the problem to be dealt with, of course, is for the unit costs to be twiddled in the next patch. Of course BTS are not omniscient, so it is unlikely they will get it perfect. So this sort of discussing will still be going on, albeit hopefully at a reduced level.

Also, I might note there can be differences of opinion as to which side is stronger (perhaps in combo with certain params). My method is (obviously) fair regardless of conditions. Any method relying on mortal man to properly set prices and/or choose params is not.

BTW, I read Jason's thing and agree that pricing up SMGs a little is a good idea, as well as putting an extra one or two into allied units. The exact details are, of course, hard to be confident of. In the absence of further inquiry, I proxy my vote to Jason.

As for playing both sides: I see a lot of top players at TH getting very intimate with the Germans, but not the allies. It is true that this proposal ends up w/ good players playing allies a lot. (My last seven games have been as Americans.) That's OK; I won't forget how to play Germans. And for that matter, I am sure you can fairly easily find a good German player at TH, any time you want to get spanked.

[bigmac@work]

Wreck, I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with your initial assumption that German forces are inherently better. I can only assume you make this statement perhaps because you may try to play both sides using the same tactics? Each side requires differences in play and have their own nuances. To make a general statement like that is invalid. True, at times you can play the Germans rather brutishly, but the Allies require a little more finesse. I enjoy playing from either side of the board and have been very successful in both uniforms. The final outcome comes down to terrain, cover, and VL location (luck never hurts either). Your statement takes even more liberties with actuality when choosing to play following Fionn's rather excellent force balancing guidelines. My post isn't made in flame, but perhaps I'd suggest you spend a little more time from the allied side to practice the necessary tactics to prove yourself wrong? Happy gaming!

Bigmac out!

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

All CM All the time!

Check out the Dogs of War CM Players Community

[Big Ron]

I'm with Big Mac. Only by playing both sides and displaying your grasp of all the available tactical nuances can you truly be counted a great player. When you've done this you'll deserve a place at the top of the ladder. (I'll be at the bottom)

[SybotCB]

How about something like:

Everything stays the same price. But if you get disproportionate troops (too many SMG squads), then it will start raising the price of those.

Giving a discount if you buy as a platoon or something.

Much over 4 or 5 of any one item would then be deathly costly to purchase. It would promote diversified units.

Would something like that work? I don't know I'm just throwing out suggestions.

[Wreck]

Bigmac, it is OK if you think Germans are not stronger. With this idea, it does not matter what the truth is about the relative strengths. Because two games are played, that evens out. At worst, the criticism of the idea should be that it results in unnecessary games being played. I don't really find that a huge problem.

In any case, your opinion places you in the minority, at least among the high-ranking TH players that I have seen opine about the issue (about half of the top ten or so).

Even if you think the allies are stronger, you can still use the idea. Just offer allies to your opponent instead of German. (But don't be surprised if you frequently get turned down!)

As for your suggestion that my belief is made in ignorance: at least with the idea I have proposed, the problem should be self-correcting. That is, I ignorantly think Germans are stronger, so I offer my lower-rated opponents Germans, and thus end up playing Allies a lot. In the long run I should therefore unlearn my ignorance -- if that is what it is.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by SybotCB:

Much over 4 or 5 of any one item would then be deathly costly to purchase. It would promote diversified units.

The problem I see with this is that it would really encourage cherry picking. Personally, it annoys me when I see more than one type of infantry in a game, or British tanks with American infantry. If you pick SMG units make them all SMG.

Of course, this only applies if you want some historical accuracy in your game. Otherwise, why not.

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

What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

[Guy w/gun]

I think wreck is saying that from a TH perspective, the Germans are stronger. Meaning that if played in a, shall we say, ahistoric way, they have an advantage.

As a poster in an earlier thread demonstrated in a game with his inexpirirnced 14-year old nephew, an ahistoric minded player can wreak great Havoc with the Germans. And as I understand it, most high ranking ladder players do just this.

Lots of Big Cats and SMG squads is the usual OOB. The problem is since the unit values in QB are based on all around performance (even on things not modeled in CM like cross-country), the allies have higher costing, less armored tanks. True, the Sherman broke down a lot less than the KT, but in a QB it doesn't help it any.

Also Axis units don't have a lot of mortars, MG, etc attached like the Allies do. So a Company of Axis infantry costs a lot less than an allied one.

That said, I think the CM2 and it's option of point values being based on historical availabiluty will help a little.

[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-27-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-27-2001).]

[SybotCB]

The problem I see with this is that it would really encourage cherry picking. Personally, it annoys me when I see more than one type of infantry in a game, or British tanks with American infantry. If you pick SMG units make them all SMG.

I thought the problem was that the "System" used like 75% SMG, 15% pupchens (or some 75mm Inf Gun), and 10% JagdPanzers. Or some breakdown thereof.

Now I admit I don't know anything about WWII. Were units pretty diverse or pretty concentrated. I thought the point of combined arms was effective use of many different units to your advantage.

If the above breakdown (IIRC, I've not used this in a battle so don't know what works, and what everyone's doing, on TH) accurately reflects the makeup of a unit during WWII then so be it, Everyone then needs to stop complaining about TH being "gamey".

If the above breakdown is not accurate than wouldn't something like relative costing the more of one kind of unit you take MORE accurately reflect the typical WWII battlefield. I'm not saying restrict non-diverse squads. But make it progressively more expensive to add them.

B

[bigmac@work]

Hi Wreck, I'm sorry if I implied you were ignorant. Not my intention. I was simply trying to inject that neither side has an inherent advantage in all situations, as you implyed of the Germans. Nor did I say that Allies were always better. The great thing about CM is that the analogy to the NFL rings true... "On any given Sunday..." or some such... There is certainly nothing wrong with your proposition of playing double games. Twice the CM fun! hehe. I'd hazard to guess that the vaunted Top 10 at TH of which you speak probabably don't always play Fionn's Short-75 rule either. If they did, then the implication that Germans are always better wouldn't have been made. Anyway, I didn't want to make my point at your expense. Sorry again. Keep giving the Allies a go though, you can learn to take advantage of their strengths while exploiting the Germans weaknesses.

Most importantly, relax and enjoy the CM ride.

Bigmac out!

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

All CM All the time!

Check out the Dogs of War CM Players Community

[aka_tom_w]

bump