Points allocation redux--artillery & totals

[WolfLord]

<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?

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Answer to your first point: Because I don't want to play an Armor ME. I prefer having a Combined Arms force as this allows generation of a great diversity of units built around a sufficient (not large) armor force. Now, this is not possible for Germany.

Second point: Yes. This is entirely too much trouble to be asked to go through in order to set up a quick TCP/IP game.

Third: Yep, wasnt the answer I was looking for...

[Henri]

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

That's simply not true, check again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right, what I said is true only if I restrict my forces to be Heer; one can also choose an SS infantry company, but it is not clear to me if that is superior to the Heer one.

Joe has posted some interesting-looking combinations on the "rock,scissors...etc" thread and I'm trying to check them out (not a simple task...).

Henri

Henri

[Lacky]

This afternoon I wandered into CM IRC chat at TGN and was happy to find willing opponents. I'd never fought these people before. I spent the day fighting three different opponents in live games. Two out of the three games I was given the Axis side. The other one was an auto-select British force, which has little bearing in this thread.

All three games were 1,000 ME's.

In both of the Axis setups, I purchased:

1- Jadgpanther (regular)

2- Full company of PanzerGrenadiers (regulars)

3- Two 81mm FO's (regulars)

4- A Sharpshooter (veteran)

The rest of the points I used on a variety of support weapons. The first match I bought a pair of 50mm AT guns. The 2nd match I grabbed a 75mm Inf Gun and a 75mm Half-track. My points might not be exact since I didn't write everything down.

My first German match was against a company of British Airborne, with supporting Artillery, Churchill VIII and a Wolverine. The 2nd Axis game I fought American's who had infantry, 76mm AT guns, and M4's. I'll admit the fight against the American force pitted him against a very bad map. Nevertheless, we fought.

I won both my German matches. So I still don't understand why folks are stating the German side is at a disadvantage. I don't rate myself better than an average player, at best. So please someone enlightenment me further because I must be missing something drastic.

[CavScout]

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

Answer to your first point: Because I don't want to play an Armor ME. I prefer having a Combined Arms force as this allows generation of a great diversity of units built around a sufficient (not large) armor force. Now, this is not possible for Germany.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly how does combined arms offer all that much more "diversity"?

1,000 point game Quick Battle Meeting Engagment:

Force-Combined Arms/Armor

Infantry-620/520

Support-248/208

Vehicle-250/200

Armor-200/1000

Artillery-150/150

There is very little point shift other than armor and even then those matter little as you want more armor points to spend in the combined arms. If you select armor and spend 300 points in armor you will have roughly the same force as combined arms.

[Panther131]

I dont think that it is about who can win with what or how good you are. There is a percieved difference in the armor allocation, infantry allocation...etc in a combined arms meeting engagment.

It seems that certain people (and I do not know how many) want the points allocation turned back to its original.

I dont think saying that "becouse I won a few german 1000 combined arms meeting engagments battles" can cut an argument either way.

Just my 2 cents.

[Vanir]

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

Joe has posted some interesting-looking combinations on the "rock,scissors...etc" thread and I'm trying to check them out (not a simple task...).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He did. Since it applies directly to this subject I'll copy it here:

***********************

I disagree about the US having more flexibility, IMO the Germans still have the edge there even with reduced Armour points. Case in point for a 1000pt Combined Arms meeting engagement:

Axis

Example#1

1 SS Mot. Company(4MG42/2Mortars)

1 MkIVH

1 Hetzer

1 250/9

1 234/3

1 Panzershreck

1 120mmFO

or

Example#2

2 Volks. Companys

2 StugIIIs

1 234/3

2 MG42s

1 120mmFO

or

Example#3

1 SS Rifle Company(2MG42)

1 SS Mot. Platoon

1 LMG42

1 Puppchen

1 Kubelwagon

1 120mmFO

1 JgPzIV

1 MarderII

1 Puma

US

Example#1

1 Rifle44 Company(3MGs/3zooks/3mortars)

1 81mm FO

2 Hellcats

1 Vet Greyhound

1 M8 HMC

or switch the armour to

1 M4A3

1 Hellcat

1 Greyhound

1 M8 HMC

Example#2

1 Rifle44 Company(3MGs/3zooks/3mortars)

1 4.2"FO

2 M4A1s

1 Greyhound

Once the US has selected a Rifle Company his choices are limited after that, of course the US player could select platoons then:

Example#3

4 Rifle Platoons

2 MGs

2 Bazookas

2 M10s

1 Priest

1 M3A1

1 81mm FO

The German still has more freedom in mixing and matching units. There's no need for a Panther when the 75L/48 is more than adequate for most Allied armour.

I think if a player selects a balanced combined arms force then he will be able to deal with any situation that crops up with the proper tactics.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[General Panic]

I have a suggestion (should anyone be interested).

The easiest way for BTS to fix this (in CM2) is to put a check box in the QB setup screen that says "Use Historical Force Ratios" or something like that. Uncheck the box and the points are equal. Check it, and the points are assigned according to what BTS thinks are historical proportions.

Another way would be to have a "free selection" option so that both sides can purchase units any way they like, historical ratios be damned.

Either way, both sides are happy and we won't have to listen to the b!tching and moaning and endlessly insulting each other.

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

Two Rules to Live By:

1. Never Get Out of the Boat.

2. Charlie Doesn't Surf.

[CavScout]

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

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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said this in response to this, "Combined arms just means the force will be a combination of the different force types. Nothing more."

All along I had assumed you have a legit copy of CM, complete with manual. Perhaps I am wrong.

Anyone with the manual knows that it say, "Lastly, COMBINED ARMS allows you to buy units from all combat arms." It is on page 110, Purchasing Units in the Quick Battle section.

So yes, it is in the manual. I suggest you read it, if you have it, or buy a legit copy of CM so you can.

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]

[WolfLord]

CavScout, if its proof you are looking for, just go back to CM ver. 1.05. There you will find equality in QB Combined Arms (Meeting Engagement) points. You seem to be consistently missing the point, which is: A difference has been noticed between a previous ver. of the game and the current version. Furthermore, this difference is what has unbalanced the game. IMHO, this portion of the game was not broken in 1.05, why fix it now???

[Slapdragon]

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

CavScout, if its proof you are looking for, just go back to CM ver. 1.05. There you will find equality in QB Combined Arms (Meeting Engagement) points. You seem to be consistently missing the point, which is: A difference has been noticed between a previous ver. of the game and the current version. Furthermore, this difference is what has unbalanced the game. IMHO, this portion of the game was not broken in 1.05, why fix it now???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was fixed to increase the historical accuracy of the game, as numerous other fixes such as the armour of the Jumbo were placed into the game.

First off, it does not unbalance the game -- no one has shown that it is any harder to win Axis now than before, and when I challenge the more verbal adult players to a game, I play axis using combined arms, they do not take me up on it. Supposedly they could skunk me twice around the field as allies.

Next, everyone who says it is not historical are not really up on history. The allies had more tanks allocated farther down the chain of command than axis. The Axis relied on eratz AFVs, infantry with AT weapons, and a core of true AFVs to fight allied armour. If you want an armoured force, then that is an option, which represents a Panzer unit in operation. So I would want to see from someone who wants it changed the proof that the Axis had the same or nearly the same number of AFVs at the front as the allies. By the same token the Allies had a big problem supplying infantry to the front. They did not have enough formations, and those formations were often understrength. Lowering the US infantry is historical.

So, the problem is we have a desire to move the game more toward a fantasy football design rather than a historical wargame. If we do that I think that the Sherman should be evened up with the Panther and Allied infantry should be evened up with Axis infantry just to make things more fair. And, I think Allies and Axis should be able to purchase load outs of tungsten. I would rather but 10 rounds of tungsten for my 76w than 20 rounds of AP. After all we are talking about inreased choice, and limiting the Allied player in tungsten, while historically accurate, is not fair because it limits my choice, and I would have more fun with the game if I had more choices.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Geez, did anyone read the link posted in the locked thread that had Charles' explanation for the change. It wasn't primarily for historical reasons, although they were mentioned as a side benefit; it was to counteract the German advantage in "vehicles." That's what Charles' somewhat oblique reference to the Allies having too many halftracks means.

German "vehicles" include armored cars and halftracks with significant antipersonnel (81mm HT; 20mm HT; 75mm HT) and anti-armor (Puma, 75mm HTs) capabilities. US forces are stuck with varieties of the M8, and I'm not sure that Brits or Canadians or Poles or French get even anything as good as the Greyhound.

Greyhounds, of course, can be effective, but only on the flank against armor, and are not very effective against infantry. There is nothing in the Allied vehicle category that is the equivalent of the Puma, not to mention the wide variety of other vehicles, including flame-throwing halftracks.

The problem with the 1.05 Combined ME QB point totals was when Germans and Allied spent the same amount of points on Armor, the Germans then had a lot of additional points that could be spent on useful vehicles, whereas the Allies were much more limited in the vehicles that they could choose, and none of the allied AT vehicles (i.e, the Greyhound) could take out a German MBT from the front.

There would, of course, have been other ways of dealing with this problem, such as including Pumas and Greyhounds and such in the armor category...but (1) that's not really what they are; and (2) the Germans would still have an advantage in the vehicle category with flame-throwing HT's and mortar HT's and the like.

Including vehicles gives, in a 2000 pt battle, an armor&vehicle force that might look like this:

German: 3xPz IV(h); 6xPuma; 1x251/9 HT

Allied: 3xM4A1, 2xM4A3; 5xM8 Greyhound.

I would feel very comfortable playing German with a force selection like that. There are other variations that could happen, of course; the US player could choose 76mm Sherms, and get fewer, or the German could opt for more StuG IVs, or even more Hetzers, and different vehicles -- perhaps a 20mm HT. Still doesn't strike me as unfair to the Germans.

Now it may be that there are odd effects in smaller games -- say 1000 pts or below -- because some German tanks are so expensive that you can't even buy one, especially if you want it to be veteran. I think the solution to this is simply to play slightly larger battles. If you were used to playing 1000 pt. meeting engagements (combined arms, of course) and find you're hampered because at that level you can no longer afford the tank you used to be able to afford, play a slightly larger sized battle -- say, 1250 points.

I will be the first to admit the the resulting force (a KT surrounded by a swarm of Pumas, perhaps), will not be very historical, but it should be balanced.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Personally, I find the artillery point restriction the most constraining, and the least realistic for the American forces. In my opinion, they should have more like 1/4 of their points available for artillery, perhaps even 30%.

Historically, the attacking "point" of a battalion could expect 105mm on call, in addition to battalion mortars. While I would not require Americans to take that much arty, it should be allowed to them, I would think.

The U.S. having lots of 105mm is the main realistic balancer of the Germans having more heavily armored tanks. The Americans, with artillery help, may be able to stalemate the German infantry, even if the German armor wins its part of the fight.

If the U.S./Allies were allowed 30% arty, I'd allow 20% to the Germans.

I would also like to see the other unit lay outs of the American side represented, instead of having to create them out of standard rifle platoons, which are obviously patterned on the infantry division's standard line units.

By that I mean scout platoons, cavalry troops, armored infantry platoons and companies. In larger fights one can recreate those by detaching some units and cross-assigning others to higher echelon HQs, but it is not the best way to do it. But this one is a quibble.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Geez, did anyone read the link posted in the locked thread that had Charles' explanation for the change. It wasn't primarily for historical reasons, although they were mentioned as a side benefit; it was to counteract the German advantage in "vehicles." That's what Charles' somewhat oblique reference to the Allies having too many halftracks means.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, comments about historical reality in support of the change have been in reply to the critique that it is not historical. The three critiques are it reduces historical accuracy, it make playing Germans unfair, and it reduces player choice and thus enjoyment of the game are being fielded. That two out of three are innacurrate needs to be addressed even if Charles had other reasons for doing it. (# 3 above has no answer -- since you can get around the limitations by choosing armour, it is more a red herring).

[Philistine]

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

Actually, comments about historical reality in support of the change have been in reply to the critique that it is not historical. The three critiques are it reduces historical accuracy, it make playing Germans unfair, and it reduces player choice and thus enjoyment of the game are being fielded. That two out of three are innacurrate needs to be addressed even if Charles had other reasons for doing it. (# 3 above has no answer -- since you can get around the limitations by choosing armour, it is more a red herring).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, much of the comments have not had to do with the three critiques. 1st, it seems that the historical "critique" is more of a claim that the "new" point allocation is no more historical than the old (a response to an express or implied reason for changing the allocation based on being historical).

Also, I'm not so sure that the balance tips in favor of the Germans. Especially since the Germans have such a variety of infantry types to choose from, increasing their points in infantry very well may unbalance the game in the German favor.

The problem I have is more with what you said in a previous post. I want to have equivalent point allocations for both sides. While colorful, your "fantasy football" argument doesn't seem to have a whole lot of utility. No one is requesting units be made generic, only that the status quo that has been in place for 6 months not be changed without good reason. I subscribe to the premise that equal point allocations are presumptively fair. I have seen no reasoned argument by anyonethat they are not fair. Have you?

Unequal point allocations may very well be fair also. The problem is, they don't seem fair. If equal point allocations are not any more ahistorical than the "new" allocations (and both are arbitrary allocations vastly overshadowed by the ahisorical fact of equal number of total points to a side) then why not use the equal point allocations?

I think the reason so much heat has been generated is that there has been no official reason on the change (other than a cryptic remark by Charles a month ago) and both "sides" are talking past each other and not addressing each others' points.

Just my $.02

--Philistine

[This message has been edited by Philistine (edited 01-20-2001).]

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Actually, comments about historical reality in support of the change have been in reply to the critique that it is not historical.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A critique that still absolutely stands, since I have yet to see anyone tell me how this change will make QBs more historical. Do I need to repost my examples of historical and ahistorical forces with both sets of ratios?

And, of course, you and CavScout have still refused to address the point that you have no way of quantifying "historical" ratios to begin with.

The amusing thing is that this change was supposedly to remove an advatage that the Germans had. But I have never heard any complaints prior to the change.

Where are all the posts complaining about the unfair German advantage prior to this change?

Why haven't Slapdragon and CavScout told BTS they were wrong to think that there was an unfair advatage before, since they have stated time and again that the force ratios cannot influence balance to begin with? Why the double standard?

Jeff Heidman

[CavScout]

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

Why haven't Slapdragon and CavScout told BTS they were wrong to think that there was an unfair advatage before, since they have stated time and again that the force ratios cannot influence balance to begin with? Why the double standard?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who says I thought it was "unfair" before? I never paid much attention to the points untill the crying started about the change. I had never compared them. Secondly, I don't think it affects place balance either way. So why would I care how it goes? BTS, can mix it up some more for all I care. I just don't buy the cries of those who want to play Germans and how unfair it is to them. Why is that a double-standard? I don't think it affects play balance, either way, so why would I advocate any change? Either way I'll play either side.

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]

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-20-2001).]

[Guest JAZZA]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by General Panic:

I have a suggestion (should anyone be interested).

The easiest way for BTS to fix this (in CM2) is to put a check box in the QB setup screen that says "Use Historical Force Ratios" or something like that. Uncheck the box and the points are equal. Check it, and the points are assigned according to what BTS thinks are historical proportions.

Another way would be to have a "free selection" option so that both sides can purchase units any way they like, historical ratios be damned.

Either way, both sides are happy and we won't have to listen to the b!tching and moaning and endlessly insulting each other.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree General Panic.In cm2 quick battles there could be a historical option and an "even points allocation" option where there is a set amount of points allocated to each category,artillery,infantry etc...but the allocation is even for each side.By this I don't mean ( say in a 1000 point m/e) that there is a 1000 point limit in each unit category, but a set limit as it is now,just even for both sides.If BTS preferred to keep it the way it is now for cm2 but with a historical option.How about putting an option in the editor so you don't have to send a map and unit purchase lists to a third party to tournament save it and send back.In the editor,maybe there could be a pbem option that has fog of war in the setup.So when you pick your units,save it and send it to your opponent,they can open it and not see your forces when they look at the map.This would be a way for people wanting to have no point allocation restrictions.

[Vanir]

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

I think the reason so much heat has been generated is that there has been no official reason on the change (other than a cryptic remark by Charles a month ago) and both "sides" are talking past each other and not addressing each others' points.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For those who missed it in the locked thread here is a reprint of Charles "cryptic remark".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On 12-22-00 Charles wrote:

First let's be clear that in "Armor" formations in quick battles, the points available to Axis and Allies for armor are the same (100%).

But for combined arms the Allies are allowed to use a larger chunk for armor (but less for the vehicles cetegory). This is because of two things:

1. The Germans have a much wider range of choice in combat effective vehicles that fall into the "vehicles" category rather than the "armor" category (e.g. all the cannon-armed halftracks).

2. The real German army was more likely to put non-tank AFVs in front-line combat than the Allies were. This is mainly a reflection of the numbers and types of vehicles that they had at their disposal.

Giving equal portions for armor to Axis and Allies in combined arms would result in Allied formations that are way too heavy on halftracks.

Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[Slapdragon]

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

A critique that still absolutely stands, since I have yet to see anyone tell me how this change will make QBs more historical. Do I need to repost my examples of historical and ahistorical forces with both sets of ratios?

And, of course, you and CavScout have still refused to address the point that you have no way of quantifying "historical" ratios to begin with.

The amusing thing is that this change was supposedly to remove an advatage that the Germans had. But I have never heard any complaints prior to the change.

Where are all the posts complaining about the unfair German advantage prior to this change?

Why haven't Slapdragon and CavScout told BTS they were wrong to think that there was an unfair advatage before, since they have stated time and again that the force ratios cannot influence balance to begin with? Why the double standard?

Jeff Heidman

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I did mention several times in previous discussions that, if we wanted to increase historical accuracy, we would reduce Axis armour availability in QBs (along with restrict employment of the Pershing to armour scenarios and some other little historical tweeks).

What we are waiting for from you is the proof on the historical side that, current research aside, the Germans actually had the same number of tanks at the front as the allies (of course they developed all those tank attriction forces for the hell of it). It is easy to say "wahhhhhh change the game" it is hard to discuss come up with historical site.

On the other side, restrictions of force totals in combined arms, almost every account of these types of comflicts has laments about the lack of armour, the wish more artillery were available, for the US the wish that more infantry was available, etc. Jeff, you and others, to make a historical argument, need to come up with some sort of historical model where von Mellenthin says, "heck, we had tanks coming out are arse, so many tanks I couldn't get the front line commanders to take them from me."

If you can even come up with this fact and give it three paragraphs of good discussion I guarantee you could get it published in a journal that deals with World War Two history, since it would be so counter to current understanding as to shake a lot of researchers, including people who fought on the front as junior officers and are now retiring historians, understanding of how the war was fought.

So of the 3 arguements:

1) It makes the game unfair.

2) It is not historical.

3) It reduces player choice (true but silly for reasons already discussed.

So Jeff, the ball has always been in your court. Prove 1 or 2 is correct.

[Slapdragon]

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

Actually, much of the comments have not had to do with the three critiques. 1st, it seems that the historical "critique" is more of a claim that the "new" point allocation is no more historical than the old (a response to an express or implied reason for changing the allocation based on being historical).

Also, I'm not so sure that the balance tips in favor of the Germans. Especially since the Germans have such a variety of infantry types to choose from, increasing their points in infantry very well may unbalance the game in the German favor.

The problem I have is more with what you said in a previous post. I want to have equivalent point allocations for both sides. While colorful, your "fantasy football" argument doesn't seem to have a whole lot of utility. No one is requesting units be made generic, only that the status quo that has been in place for 6 months not be changed without good reason. I subscribe to the premise that equal point allocations are presumptively fair. I have seen no reasoned argument by anyonethat they are not fair. Have you?

Unequal point allocations may very well be fair also. The problem is, they don't seem fair. If equal point allocations are not any more ahistorical than the "new" allocations (and both are arbitrary allocations vastly overshadowed by the ahisorical fact of equal number of total points to a side) then why not use the equal point allocations?

I think the reason so much heat has been generated is that there has been no official reason on the change (other than a cryptic remark by Charles a month ago) and both "sides" are talking past each other and not addressing each others' points.

Just my $.02

--Philistine

[This message has been edited by Philistine (edited 01-20-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, as I have discussed, it is historical to have the allies with more tank power countered by better German AT in the form of support units. I don't see here how anyone can argue the Germans had anywhere near equal number of tanks at the front at any point from 3 days past the D-Day landings. They however had lots of attrition forces that destroy AFVs that are more effective than allies, and they had lots of infantry at the front, more per capita in their military than any of the allies. Look at James F. Dunnigan's discussion of firepower in "How to Make War" and how the Western Allies relied on tanks assigned to even the most leggy of leg units to make up for the fact that they plain old did not raise enough infantry units for the front. (A trend which would continue, by Vietnam, the US would field 550,000 people to put 32,000 rifle carrying infantry into the jungle -- per Anthony Herbert in "Soldier").

Like I said before, we have two argument: it is not historical and it is not fair. Neither are true. AND we have two sort of arguments, why are there any restrictions (Fantasy Football style play) which makes me wonder why do we not allow the allies to buy tungsten for their guns, squad level purchases, etc.

Oddly enough, the answer many times repeated is, just play armour and ask your opponent to play CE allowing the German to get all the armour the want, the reply being "but I want to play Combined Arms" followed by "besides, I should be able to pick anything I want." Well, who cares what setting you play? I do not. Play armour and I play combined, and I will still win or come dang close. Either side. 1.1 rules.

Of course a final idea: If you have all that much support for this, form a 1.05 petition, and just say you wont play 1.1. If no one can find a 1.1 opponent on the latters, everone will switch back to 1.05, and BTS will eventually change it all.

The problem is, this issue would be a non started if it did not change something involved with German Armour. Any other move to more historical play would be greeted with pleasure by the community except when it involves German armour. All sense flies out the window then.

[Polar]

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

CavScout, if its proof you are looking for, just go back to CM ver. 1.05. There you will find equality in QB Combined Arms (Meeting Engagement) points. You seem to be consistently missing the point, which is: A difference has been noticed between a previous ver. of the game and the current version. Furthermore, this difference is what has unbalanced the game. IMHO, this portion of the game was not broken in 1.05, why fix it now???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correction... what is happening here is that some people can't buy the same mix they are used to, so instead of adapting and overcoming they are whining and crying.

A German player still has just as much chance to win now as they did in 1.05... if he knows how to use infantry.

Joe

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

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

[WolfLord]

"A German player still has just as much chance to win now as they did in 1.05... if he knows how to use infantry."

Its rather hard and annoying to be asked to take out a tank pummeling you from a stand-off position because your inadequate tank force has been quickly decimated by increased numbers of allied tungsten-using TDs and tanks. Understand, the reason Im making such a big deal is that I like playing small (around 1000pt CA ME). When I play these battles I am forced (as a German player) to rely on inadequate armor support in games. I must either buy 2 reg. hetzers, a PZIV and a hetzer, a JgPzIV and an infantry killer such as Wespe, Stu42 or Hummel, but never 2 AT capable units and an infantry killing armor unit as before. Please do not say "Play bigger battles!" I don't like bigger battles. The incr. support points do not help in 1000pt battles as the biggest inf. killer I have there is a 75 mm with meager ammo. I guess a could tow a 150mm inf gun around, but that's rather irritating in MEs. I don't get me started on MEs with computer generated forces at 1000pts and combined arms with the new points...play the Germans in this situation and prepare to pull your hair out. I now must buy my forces in ALL QB CA MEs to ensure a capable fight at all. These little battles were great fun before. I challenge anyone to tell me that 1000pt QBs CA MEs are balanced when playing the Germans now.

[JoePrivate]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"A German player still has just as much chance to win now as they did in 1.05... if he knows how to use infantry."

Its rather hard and annoying to be asked to take out a tank pummeling you from a stand-off position because your inadequate tank force has been quickly decimated by increased numbers of allied tungsten-using TDs and tanks. Understand, the reason Im making such a big deal is that I like playing small (around 1000pt CA ME). When I play these battles I am forced (as a German player) to rely on inadequate armor support in games. I must either buy 2 reg. hetzers, a PZIV and a hetzer, a JgPzIV and an infantry killer such as Wespe, Stu42 or Hummel, but never 2 AT capable units and an infantry killing armor unit as before. Please do not say "Play bigger battles!" I don't like bigger battles. The incr. support points do not help in 1000pt battles as the biggest inf. killer I have there is a 75 mm with meager ammo. I guess a could tow a 150mm inf gun around, but that's rather irritating in MEs. I don't get me started on MEs with computer generated forces at 1000pts and combined arms with the new points...play the Germans in this situation and prepare to pull your hair out. I now must buy my forces in ALL QB CA MEs to ensure a capable fight at all. These little battles were great fun before. I challenge anyone to tell me that 1000pt QBs CA MEs are balanced when playing the Germans now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok WolfLord,

Contrast the following force combinations allowed under 1.05 with the ones above posted by Vanir. The setup is 1000pt ME Combined Arms under 1.05.

Axis

Example#1

1 Security Company(2MG42/2Mortar)

1 Security Platoon

1 PantherA

1 StuH42

1 250/9

1 250/8

1 120mmFO

Example#2

1 SS Rifle Company(2MG42)

1 SS Rifle Platoon

1 Vet Panzershreck

1 MkIVH

1 StugIII

1 Lynx

1 234/3

2 81mmFO

Example#3

1 FJ Company(3shrecks/1 81mmFO)

1 MG42

1 PzIV/70

1 JgPzIV

1 250/9

1 250/8

1 Pak38

1 250/1 HT

US

The US can't even afford a Rifle Company or more than 3 Platoons in a 1.05 1000pt game!

Example#1

3 Rifle44 Platoons

2 Bazookas

2 .50calMGs

2 81mmMortars

1 M4A1(76)

1 M4A3

1 M3A1 HT

1 4.2"FO

Example#2

3 Rifle44 Platoons

2 Bazookas

2 MGs

1 57mmAT

1 M3A1 SC

2 M4A1s

1 Greyhound

1 4.2"FO

Example#3

3 Glider Platoons(3.50cal/3 60mmMortars)

1 Jackson

1 Hellcat

1 M8 HMC

1 M3A1 SC

1 81mmFO

1 75mm FO

In all honesty WolfLord, looking at the combinations allowed under 1.05 and 1.1 where does the most disparity lay? Combined arms ME are more equal now than before IMO. Some of you guys are just looking at the points allowed without considering the force in total that was purchased. It is the total force as a whole you should look at, as that is what you will be using in the game. Comparing the changes from 1.05 in adjustments made to the cost of units and the points allocation, it is obvious to me BTS just didn't make an arbitrary decision, a lot of thought was put into the tweaks they made which for the most part are for the better. Hell, a person could make the claim that the German side has more of an advantage now than before because of the increase in infantry allowed under 1.1 coupled with more than adequate armour support.

[This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 01-20-2001).]

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Jeff, you and others, to make a historical argument, need to come up with some sort of historical model where von Mellenthin says, "heck, we had tanks coming out are arse, so many tanks I couldn't get the front line commanders to take them from me."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, YET AGAIN.

I have no need to come up with a historical argument of any kind. YOU need to come up with an argument that shows that this change INCREASES the historical accuracy of the average QB. THAT is the claim made by you, CavScout, and BTS to justify the CHANGE made to the game.

There is no debate that the Germans were short on armor. Your entire post is a typical strawman created by you. No-one has made any such moronic claim as you stipulated above, nor have they even tried to say anything remotely similar to that.

You are still categorically refusing to address my point.

This is the third time I am posting this question/point, and I am sure it will be the third time you will ignore and instead choose to quote some other out of context portion of my post, or maybe make some personal attack instead.

In order to make an argument that QB1.1 is more historically accurate than QB1.05, you must show the following, at a minimum:

1. That German armor, in all cases, never amounted to more than 20% of a "combined arms" force. A good start on this would be to define combined arms in a historical context.

2.HOW DO YOU ENSURE THAT THIS CHANGE WILL RESULT IN A MORE HISTORICAL QB FORCE CHOSEN BY EITHER PLAYER? I have shown quite conclusively that it is trivial for a player to create a perfectly historical force in ver1.05, and a totally ahistorical one in ver1.1. So how does this change accomplish the stated goal of providing a more historical force?

Quit trying to change the subject and construct red herring and strawman arguments. No one has claimed that the Germans had armor falling out of their ass, no has claimed that the old version was more historical. Stick to arguing with what your opponents actually state, instead of what you wish they would state.

Jeff Heidman

[Panther131]

Hear hear!

Just adding to my posts! (total)

[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-20-2001).]