Points allocation redux--artillery & totals

[Philistine]

Sorry to start a new topic, but this is a somewhat different issue and the other thread at this point is mostly name-calling. It can be read atHere

The two issues that haven't been discussed are:

(1) Increase in artillery points of Allies versus axis (187 vs. 150 in a 1000 point battle--about 14% difference) and the (possibly) related

(2) Excess ("chooseable") points to allies (1499 vs. 1468 in a 1000 point battle).

The first issue is fairly self-explanatory. What is interesting is that it seems to also extend to "Armor" force composition & not just "combined arms" force composition. Also, Germans in Armor battles can choose more infantry (520 vs. 460 in a 1000 point battle).

With regard to the second issue (total choosable points), is this intentional? I note that this is reversed in the "Armor" force composition type--there the Allies have 2054 points while the Germans have 2078 in a 1000 point value (Choosable points are calculated by adding together all the maximum points of each category: infantry, support, etc.) I note that for a 1000 point meeting engagement the additional points to Allies are 31 total and 37 to artillery.

While this issue gives no point advantage, per se (you're still limited to 1000 points), it does give the Allies a flexibility advantage in combined arms and the Germans a flexibility advantage in Armor.

My concern with the new different point totals is more an argument based on perception than historicality or even necessarily actual playbalance.

Previously, I had liked (when playing a human) to play combined arms meeting-engagement quickbattles. Not because I particularly liked that type of engagement (I personally think attacks or assaults--or defending are more interesting)but because of my perception of the "eveness" of the battle. Each side had the same number of points that they could spend in the same categories. I am equally inept with Allies or Germans and I know enough to know what most equipment is and its general best use, but that's about it (a grog-lite at best). When I lost (which is fairly often) I didn't think it was because I could have been the other side, and been able to have better tanks/artillery/infantry/AC's or whatever.

Now, however, I have the nagging suspicion that my choice of side will affect the outcome. My problem is, I don't know which way! Do the Germans have the advantage because of the ability to pick more infantry and AC's (How many Pumas do you think you'll see now in the average QB)? Do the Allies have the advantage in being able to choose more Armor and artillery? Who knows? But regardless, at least to me, the presumption of fairness has been lost, which means that in my next losses I will probably have a nagging voice in my head saying "if only." Which is too bad.

Sorry for the length and my personal digression (which probably should have gone in the other thread). I'm more interested in what people's perception of the fairness (and whether this should extend also to the Armor (& presumably infantry?) types of force composition.

--Philistine

[Dschugaschwili]

Well, I guess the german player almost has to buy a Puma or a similar vehicle. I don't have the exact numbers with me at the moment, but I think it is now impossible to buy an Axis combined arms attack force without spending some points for vehicles (at least if you want to spend all your points). This might be a problem because German vehicles have to be handled VERY carefully if you're facing an American force because of the .50 cal HMGs that might be standing everywhere.

Perhaps the German player should be able to spend still a few points more on infantry in Combined Arms forces?

Dschugaschwili

[coralsaw]

In your definition, "the presumption of fairness" is probably lost the moment one moves off a completely symmetrical map, fighting against a completely symmetrical force.

Point is, Allies and Axis had different units with different capabilities, fighting using different doctrines under different circumstances.

I haven't seen any repeatable problem in QBs, that tilts the scales one or the other way. On the other hand, even if the scales were tilted, I wouldn't really mind, as it would still make an interesting fight.

But that's my PoV. Sorry I haven't answered your questions per se.

Regards

ps. Having read the post, it seems a bit aggressive. Not my intention Philistine. Hope the smiley fixes everything.

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

My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

[This message has been edited by coralsaw (edited 01-18-2001).]

[Lacky]

I can offer my point of view. Whether my opinion will hold up to the scrutiny of Grogs, I'm not certain! According to some world war II literature, it's estimated 75% of German casualties occurred from Allied artillery. Whereas the Allies suffered 50% of their casualties from German artillery. These percentages are a broad stroke comparison. I, for one, am uncertain if these numbers reflect strategic casualties or a bias towards tactical artillery. We know CM models artillery extremely well and thus the perception of Allied artillery superiority needs to be maintained if historical results are desired.

As for infantry, although many posters believe US infantry platoons are more durable, I find US infantry companies very inflexible. Purchasing units is in itself very ahistorical. Many of the comparative problems we read and experience stem from players buying their forces. German infantry companies are far more flexible than their Allied counterparts. Although German infantry platoons might not be as durable, they can be used in specific roles. A German SMG platoon can lay in ambush or attack from behind a wall of smoke. German rifle platoons can be situated to cover large open areas. If weather conditions are set prior to the purchase, the German player can expect to have a near-perfect infantry force to fight with. Whereas the US player will be wondering what to do with his 60mm mortars when visibility is extreme limited. I also consider German infantry to be lethal tank killers, thus limiting how close the Allied player can approach with armor before it gets nailed with a faust.

To sum it all up: Purchasing units will cause historical headaches, unless both players attempt to maintain a historical approach. I've seen everything from green spotters using TRP's, to an absurd number of Hetzers and Pumas.Game "balance" is never perfect. Players will always find a method to min/max point total effectiveness. BTS has given a nice tool to re-enact WW2 tactical simulations. BTS also tweaks the point totals in an attempt to keep the game historically challenging for both sides.

[Jeff Heidman]

The idea that moving the percentage allocations around will result in a more "historical" force is ludicrous. In any of the the three threads so far on this subject, nobody has yet to even offer an argument that would make one inclined to think that forcing the German player to buy fewer PzIVs and more Pumas or Gerbirgsjagersturmthingie squads is somehow more "historical". they have yet to even quantify what "historical" means in anything other than very vague terms.

The force allocations are arbitrary. The point of a QB is to try to give the players some standard method for dividing up their selections. Forcing the players to divide them up differently defeats the entire purpose.

The Germans were more inclined to use "vehicle" types in front lines? So what? How does giving them more points in vehicles and infantry force them to be more historical? There is no reason for them to spend those points on the "historical" vehicles or the "historical" infantry, so how does the net effect come out in a positive way?

Players are going to buy historical forces, or they are not. Beyond the basics of giving the players choices amongst what was available for their nationality, there is little CM can do to try to force people to play in some manner that BTS has decided they should play.

Under the old system, you might see something like this for the Germans:

Infantry:

1 regular Co of 44 Rifle

1 vet 50mm AT gun

1 regular SPW 251/2

2 regular SPW 251/1

2 regular PzIVH

1 green Stug III

Is that historical?

Under the "new and improved" system we could have this:

1 elite platoon SS motorized

2 green Volksgrenadier

1 veteran platoon Gebirgsjager

1 elite platoon SS Pioneers

1 vet 88 AT gun

2 reg 88 pupchen

2 reg Puma

1 green SPW 251/8

1 elite JagdTiger

Is that "historical"?

I have no idea what the points are for either of those, but my point is that you can make a historical, or a completely non-historical force in either case. This change does *nothing* to force the player to play in some manner that is defined as "historical".

All it does is remove the ability for two people to play a QB where their opportunity to select forces is the same.

If you want historical, design or play one of the very many excellent scenarios there are out there. If you want historical, agree with your opponent before hand to some rules as to how to achieve that.

This desire to have the battle generator be more historical by forcing the sides to pick different classes of units is a failure.

Jeff Heidman

[Philistine]

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

In your definition, "the presumption of fairness" is probably lost the moment one moves off a completely symmetrical map, fighting against a completely symmetrical force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not to me . Actual fairness is probably gone as the randomly created map favors one side over another to a greater or lesser extent, as do other environmental factors. However, being random, to me it is still "fair." Additionally, the choice of units and utilization of those units will change the outcome, but as this is (at least ostensibly) skill-based, this doesn't concern me. The battle still feels fair to me, because it was equal before I made my choice of units.

I'm not sure the change to point allocations has caused any unfairness, or if so, to which side. But, what seems like it may be lost is the ability for two strangers (or even long-time players) to come together and say: Let's play a quick battle of x points, without one or both sides thinking they are starting with a disadvantage.

It's human nature to blame something else for a loss. Why make the change and provide something to blame when there didn't seem to be much need for it?

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

ps. Having read the post, it seems a bit aggressive. Not my intention Philistine. Hope the smiley fixes everything.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem. Even without the smiley. You didn't seem out of line at all. Heck, you didn't even call me names...

--Philistine

(Whoops, I should proofread before I hit submit )

[This message has been edited by Philistine (edited 01-18-2001).]

[Lacky]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

This desire to have the battle generator be more historical by forcing the sides to pick different classes of units is a failure.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After considering your post for the last day, I cannot agree with your point of view.

BTS attempts to model everything historically. So if they chose to allocate point ratio's in QB's to reflect historical trends, then they're upholding the historical premise/principle of the game. If 75mm Shermans frontally knock out Jadgtigers at 3,000 meters on a consistent basis, players would be upset about historical inaccuracies. Allowing typical non-historical/non-reality to take hold make the game any better? I think not. BTS has done a wonderful job of implementing a historical, realistic simulation. Sure, there are some problems. The problems we are facing are game mechanics not historical inaccuracy of units.

If BTS feels justified by mixing up the point totals in QB's, then they're probably doing it based on historical trends/realities. I'm more inclined to play a game based on reality, not fiction. There's nothing stopping players from creating their own scenarios and playing the game as they see fit, even if it's boarding on non-historical OOB's or unit organizations.

[Tanaka]

Very good post Jeff Heidman, I couldn't say it better...

Lacky,

"...There's nothing stopping players from creating their own scenarios and playing the game as they see fit, even if it's boarding on non-historical OOB's or unit organizations"

Your forgetting something... A guy like me, who never plays against AI, and want an equal opportunity QB PPBM, don't wont to play in a known early made scenario. In order to use an early made scenario not known to both players it is needed a 3rd non-playing player, needing 3 players to play a 2 players game is a waste of time...

[Jeff Heidman]

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

After considering your post for the last day, I cannot agree with your point of view.

If BTS feels justified by mixing up the point totals in QB's, then they're probably doing it based on historical trends/realities. I'm more inclined to play a game based on reality, not fiction. There's nothing stopping players from creating their own scenarios and playing the game as they see fit, even if it's boarding on non-historical OOB's or unit organizations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with that position is that the change has NOT succeeded in doing what you describe. It is no more likely to create a "historical" QB than the old system, as my example pointed out.

For that matter, nobody has even defined what "historical" means in this context. Before you can say that 20% armor is more "historical" than 30% armor, you have to know what the historical percentage of armor was in a combined arms German unit.

You know what? I bet that is an impossible task, since the term is "combined arms" is not even defined except as a figment of this game. The historical variance was so great that it is not even possible to claim that one number is better than another.

Those ratios are useful *only* as a tool to enforce some kind of player unit selection that will result in what the payers desire, namely an evenly matched game, with similar force structures. Except that now they no longer do that.

Jeff Heidman

[Henri]

I am not convinced either way about the point distribution, but I HAVE observed something unsettling in 1000-pt QB meeting engagements, which is what I usually play in TCPIP.

In such a battle, the Germans are limited to 200 armor points whereas the Allies have 300, which may or may not be fair. This is supposed to compensate the fact that the Germans have a greater choice of infantry.

But in a 1000-pointer QB ME (which is what I believe is the most frequently played QB), the ONLY infantry company that the German Heer can choose is the Rifle company, all other infantry companies costing more than the maximum allowed to the Germans for infantry; and this German infantry is much inferior to the corresponding infantry Company that the US player can buy. The only way that the Germans can get better infantry is to buy them piece by piece, but still they will not have enough points to get a full company.

So it appears that in 1000-pointer, the Germans are hampered not only by the Allied armor bonus which prevents the German from buying any single veteran turreted tank that can stand up the the US tanks (the only choice is two Hetzers or a Hetzer and a STUH, or a single REGULAR Panther which won't last long in front of two veteran US tanks), but the Germans are also constrained to buy inferior infantry or to pay more for them Do the additional German halftrack vehicles compensate for this? It seems to that playing a battle with inferior armor and inferior infantry is not a recipe for victory...

It may well be that for larger battles, the battles are more even, but my question is: what is the best possible unit choices for the Germans in a 1000-pt QB ME, and does this choice give the Germans an even chance?

henri

[This message has been edited by Henri (edited 01-19-2001).]

[WolfLord]

Well, I do not have much more to contribute to this ongoing discussion but I will say that I'm unhappy (as a primarily Axis player) with the new QB Combined Arms Meeting Engagement point allocation. Moreover, this problem is greatly exacerbated by the Allies "improved" tungsten use. It is my opinion, after conducting a few tests, that the balance (or lack thereof) has indeed shifted to the Allies. I have praised BTS's decision to leave QB Combined Arms forces make-up to the player in the past, but now I find myself lamenting the fact that I am now forced to play those boring Armor QBs if I want a balanced meeting engagement

[JoePrivate]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But in a 1000-pointer QB ME (which is what I believe is the most frequently played QB), the ONLY infantry company that the German Heer can choose is the Rifle company, all other infantry companies costing more than the maximum allowed to the Germans for infantry; and this German infantry is much inferior to the corresponding infantry Company that the US player can buy. The only way that the Germans can get better infantry is to buy them piece by piece, but still they will not have enough points to get a full company.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's simply not true, check again.

[Bigdog]

This is what I have been saying. I hope this thread doesn't degrade into another flame war, and that all these important points get addressed by BTS. I just started 2 PBEMs ME, CA, 2000pts. It sure feels like I need to be in more of defensive posture, other than advancing up to engage the Allied forces. Jeff you are the man I love you guy's, its nice to now I am not standing alone on this important subject

Big Dog

[DanE]

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

I have praised BTS's decision to leave QB Combined Arms forces make-up to the player in the past, but now I find myself lamenting the fact that I am now forced to play those boring Armor QBs if I want a balanced meeting engagement <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what exactly makes a balanced Armor meeting engagement QB boring and not a Combined Arms one?

Is it too much for two people to select an Armor QB and agree not to spend more than xxx on armor?

I know this is not the answer that some people want, but it seems to be the answer to what they are looking for.

Almost like arguing at Burger King because you can't get a Big Mac when there is a McDonalds right next door.

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

Dan

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

The point of a QB is to try to give the players some standard method for dividing up their selections. Forcing the players to divide them up differently defeats the entire purpose.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seems to be a mantra but where did it come from? It certainly isn't in the manual.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

This seems to be a mantra but where did it come from? It certainly isn't in the manual.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then what *is* the point?

We have shown that it does not and cannot create a "historical" fight, so provide us with a different explanation.

What does the manual have to do with anything?

If your only goal is to try to distract the discussion, why bother posting?

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-19-2001).]

[Philistine]

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

So what exactly makes a balanced Armor meeting engagement QB boring and not a Combined Arms one?

Is it too much for two people to select an Armor QB and agree not to spend more than xxx on armor?

{snip}

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two issues:

First, it appears that none of the meeting engagements are "equal". Now, in all of them (I believe) Artillery points are not equal. 187 for allies versus 150 for Germans (in a 1000 point battle). Also, infantry isn't equal in an Armor battle 460 vs. 520. I believe this is the same pattern for all types, Germans have higher infantry, Allies have higher artillery (except Ifantry (not mechanized) battles, where each side gets the same (1000 points) I think in infantry).

Second, previously, having "equal" point categories in setting up a battle with someone else helped very much as a matter of convenience and trust. To me, it was very convenient to say x points combined arms meeting engagement. with the changes you are expanding the "negotiations" and providing more opportunity for misunderstandings and hard feelings.

It was very hard to argue before that a combined arms meeting engagement was in any way "unfair" unless you were the deepest entrenched "I only play Germans" or "I only play Allies" type. Now...

It's not a huge problem, but I haven't seen any reasoned basis for it at all. The only statement BTS seems to have made on it doesn't really seem to follow (especially when you take into account that the Allies constitute 5 seperate nations....)

For me, the biggest problem is the kind of change made (fudging with the point set-ups) seems only ever to have done before in response to near-universal request (attack/assault multiples) and this change seems to have been made with no prior discussion or request, with very little in the way of explanation. To me, it takes away a great convenience of the game for dubious gain.

Just my $.02

--Philistine

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Then what *is* the point?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same as the infantry or armor force selection. Combined arms just means the force will be a combination of the different force types. Nothing more. I have never associated combined arms with "equal". That's what the points are for.

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

We have shown that it does not and cannot create a "historical" fight, so provide us with a different explanation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you say it is not any more "historical" than the original force pool points. Seems to me you have a push. It affects "historical" forces in no way, for or against. In that case, it doesn't really matter which you use. If one accept your position.

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

What does the manual have to do with anything?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try to figure out where you have come to the conclusion that combined arms means "equal" force pool points. This seems to be the crux of your side's argument yet no one has yet to say where it came from. Perhaps it came out in the manual, on this board by BTS, in a readme or maybe it was sent, in secret, to the German inclined players to give them false security . I don't know where you guys have come up with it but it sounds like people may have assumed something that just wasn't the case.

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-19-2001).]

[Jeff Heidman]

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

The same as the infantry or armor force selection. Combined arms just means the force will be a combination of the different force types. Nothing more.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How in the world would you ever come to that conclusion? Was it in the manual? Did it come as part of your charter mebership in the "American is #1 and never lost a battle!" club?

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

I have never associated combined arms with "equal". That's what the points are for.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But gee, CavScout, I never used the word "equal" to begin with. In fact, what I said is *precisely* what you just repeated back, with the addition that the ratios would be the same for both sides.

The reason one might come to that conclusion is that up until quite recently the ratios were the same for both sides! Gosh, go figure!

So I guess this would be yet another example of you quoting someone saying something they did not in an effort to bolster you argument, and you know what we call that!

You are, at the least, very consistent.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-19-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-19-2001).]

[Philistine]

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

Try to figure out where you have come to the conclusion that combined arms means "equal" force pool points. This seems to be the crux of your side's argument yet no one has yet to say where it came from. Perhaps it came out in the manual, on this board by BTS, in a readme or maybe it was sent, in secret, to the German inclined players to give them false security . I don't know where you guys have come up with it but it sounds like people may have assumed something that just wasn't the case.

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-19-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what happened (I know this is true for me, can't vouch for anybody else) is that people began using quickbattle combined-arms ME's as a preferred type to minimize "gamesmanship" in choosing battle types and as the "most fair" type in conducting E-mail games (particularly in ladder systems), as neither side could argue that the opening parameters favored one side or another.

Because this state persisted for about 6 months with little or no complaint, and much tacit (and overt) acceptance I (and presumably those others complaining) were surpised when what we had seen as a feature (and which may have just been a program "artifact") was changed with little fanfare (and without even an explicit mention in the read-me file).

You may very well be right that providing a "mirror-image" set-up for quickbattles wasn't a planned "feature", but I still think that it was useful. Of course, YMMV.

--Philistine

[Polar]

quote:

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

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

The point of a QB is to try to give the players some standard method for dividing up their selections. Forcing the players to divide them up differently defeats the entire purpose.

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

Well, maybe it never dawned on you, but German and Allied units are different. We aren't even sure whether point values are relevant between the two sides (ie. Is a 120 pt German unit twice as effective as a 60 pt U.S. unit? Or is it just twice as effective as a 60 pt. German unit...)

Maybe those who are gnashing their teeth over the Tungsten and the perceived handicap from Armor points should look at it this way...

1) For this example only, I'll conceed that the Germans are handicapped by the Armor point change

2) Historically, the Germans WERE handicapped.

3) BTS wants to make CM more historical.

So mathematically, and logically, 1+2=3.

Those who want to play Germany, be it exclusively, for one game, or on a coin toss, should realize that they are stepping into the shoes of a German officer "Beyond Normandy" where, most historians will tell you, the fate of the war was a forgone conclusion.

Now, point of view #2... where there is no handicap, only the perception of a handicap:

If you look soley at what a German player has to choose from under "Armor", and what the Allies have to chose from under "Armor"... there WERE numerically fewer "Armor" units for Germany to chose from (both in "brand name" and physically countable armor units). So, Germany more often than not, had less "Armor".

So accept the role as you now percieve it... as an uphill battle where your cunning as a General is all that you have between you and humiliating defeat.

THAT is historical.

If you want Starcraft, play starcraft. If you want post Overlord Germany, expect some historical handcuffing... as you percieve it.

Most good players will realize that a German player has enough at his disposal to win an ME he plays.

A bad craftsmen blames his tools.

Joe

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

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-19-2001).]

[IntelWeenie]

THe whole idea of a QB being historical is absurd. How often would you see nearly identical forces engaging in battle in WWII (or any other modern war, for that matter)? Sure, BTS has set it up to try to alleviate the worst of the cherry picking and produce somewhat believeable force structures, but it still is not perfect. For the sake of ladder games, I think the points allocation should be identical for all nationalites unless someone can produce hard data of consistent TO&E for all forces at the company/battalion level . Without that data (which I doubt exists), all you are left with are guesses and prejudices.

My humble $.02

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

But gee, CavScout, I never used the word "equal" to begin with. In fact, what I said is *precisely* what you just repeated back, with the addition that the ratios would be the same for both sides.

The reason one might come to that conclusion is that up until quite recently the ratios were the same for both sides! Gosh, go figure!

So I guess this would be yet another example of you quoting someone saying something they did not in an effort to bolster you argument, and you know what we call that!

You are, at the least, very consistent.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Mr. Clinton the definition of "is" is... oopps... wait a second...

Well Mr. Heidman it seems to me that "..ratios were the same for both sides." does mean they were "equal".

Is your argument now that "ratios were the same" does not mean the "ratios were equal"?

Seems to me that points being the "same" means the same thing as points being "equal".

[CavScout]

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

THe whole idea of a QB being historical is absurd.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So why even bother with choosing dates for a QB? Why not just have the option of buying ANY unit? Seems that there is some "historical" constraints on QBs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> How often would you see nearly identical forces engaging in battle in WWII (or any other modern war, for that matter)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If avoiding "identical" forces is an aim, then it WAS gained by having different force pool mixes in QB MEs. Seems this is a reason FOR the changes...

Cav

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

"Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger

Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade

"AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."--Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

[IntelWeenie]

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

So why even bother with choosing dates for a QB? Why not just have the option of buying ANY unit? Seems that there is some "historical" constraints on QBs<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said, to produce at least somewhat beleiveable force structures, not ones with all Pumas and KTs. (or Jumbos, T8s and Crocodiles, if you prefer.)

Allow me to restate my position: I see QBs are for relatively even play, such as for ladder or tourney play. BTS set up the purchase options to try and disallow totally unrealistic force compositions. A seconday use of QBs are for "fun" play when you just want to blow stuff up and romp on someone (or the AI) .

If you want truly historical play, I see no alternative to making a (properly researched) battle in the editor.