Points allocation redux--artillery & totals

[Jeff Heidman]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the Greyhound is probably the best bang for the buck in the game. So what? Who says that each side does not have different advantages? That is what happened. Should the American armored point toal be reduced because they have a flamethrower armed tank and the Germans do not?

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, so what? There is nothing in the German artillery category that is the equivalent of the 155mm VT. Why should there be?

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have had rather vociferous posts from CavScout and Slapdragon stating in no uncertain terms that people complaining about how they spend their points are stupid, and should learn how to use infantry better. Perhaps they will jump on you also, but I rather doubt it. Note that I do not think you are stupid, nor do I think you cannot use infantry properly.

The point is that it does not matter if the Germans have more useful vehicles. That is just the way it was (or wasn't, since the point is debatable to begin with). The allies have better artillery, medium tanks with tungsten, flamethrower armed tanks, etc., etc. Both sides have advantages and disadvantages that are supposedly dealt with through the point system. There should be no need to limit their choices, since the point system is supposed to roughly make things equal anyway.

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the German player selecting 6 of the couple of hundred Pumas ever built is somehow going to result in a greater amount of historical accuracy?

Your example is a great illustration of the fallacy of thinking that this change will result in greater "historical accuracy". Your example provides considerably LESS historical accuracy.

As far as the balance issue goes, I do not even think that it enters into the equation. In either case the change is small enough that it will not likely effect who wins or loses. What it does effect is the opportunity for the players to play on an level field as far as their choices are concerned, and that applies to both sides, not just whoever happens to be playing the Germans.

Jeff Heidman

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

[Slapdragon]

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

There is no debate that the Germans were short on armor.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, you have just answered the point of historical availability. If it is combined arms, then certain restrictions apply. If tthe German player does not want a combined arms restriction, they should play an armour unit to represent a Panzer unit and be done with it. Germans were short on armour -- this reflects that they pushed more AT capability to other arms. Otherwise you are left again with a non starter trying to make BTS prove why they did everything which somehow limits the Germans.

[WolfLord]

Last post for me on this subject. One more time: My problem is that the point adjustment was NOT NECESSARY WITH THE ALLIES INCREASED USE OF TUNGSTEN. I have never disputed the historical fact that the Germans were short on armor. True historical accuracy can never be reached in this game so why narrow our armor buying choices in QB CA MEs??????

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Jeff, you have just answered the point of historical availability. If it is combined arms, then certain restrictions apply. If tthe German player does not want a combined arms restriction, they should play an armour unit to represent a Panzer unit and be done with it. Germans were short on armour -- this reflects that they pushed more AT capability to other arms. Otherwise you are left again with a non starter trying to make BTS prove why they did everything which somehow limits the Germans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, true to form you chose to ignore the point of my post and comment on a less relevant, totally out of context portion, just like I predicted.

The fact that the Germans were short on armor, or that they pushed AT assets into other arms, is not relevant to the question of whether it is more historically accurate to chose the percentages in question.

And quit with the attmept to paint this as some kind of Germanophile issue, because it is not. It limits the Allies as much as it limits the Germans, just in a different manner.

This constant references to "invincible German tanks" and that other crap is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty and ad hominem. And you know it. Most people would consider what you are doing to be lying.

Jeff Heidman

[Slapdragon]

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

Your example is a great illustration of the fallacy of thinking that this change will result in greater "historical accuracy". Your example provides considerably LESS historical accuracy.

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

Actually Jeff, I support rarity factor limit on purchasing, but I also am starting to support fantasy football setting for German players (the allies do not need it). Psychologically, the Axis has the most people who get upset when historical reality wins out over perceptions of invincibility. A core of people play because they like German tanks. When pointed to a historical out (play armour) they say they don't want to play armour. So: we should have for the German player a fantasy setting that allows any unit in any combination to be picked in any QB. This solves the whiners problems. On ladders, most Grogs will not play these people, but they can play each other.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Actually Jeff, I support rarity factor limit on purchasing, but I also am starting to support fantasy football setting for German players (the allies do not need it). Psychologically, the Axis has the most people who get upset when historical reality wins out over perceptions of invincibility. A core of people play because they like German tanks. When pointed to a historical out (play armour) they say they don't want to play armour. So: we should have for the German player a fantasy setting that allows any unit in any combination to be picked in any QB. This solves the whiners problems. On ladders, most Grogs will not play these people, but they can play each other.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a bunch of bull****.

Why do you bother spreading this kind of feces around? If you are just going to run about insulting those who do not conform to your thinking, at least have the honesty to say it without trying to act like you are actually having a discussion.

You can take your "fantasy football" crap and shove it back where it belongs.

Your elitism and barely disguised comtempt for people who do not agree with you is disgusting.

You STILL have not responded to my point, and instead chose to engage in this latest bout of lying and personal attacks. I am done with you. Your constant lies, evasions, and refusal to act in anything approaching an honest manner are no longer worth the trouble.

Jeff Heidman

[Slapdragon]

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

What a bunch of bull****.

Why do you bother spreading this kind of feces around? If you are just going to run about insulting those who do not conform to your thinking, at least have the honesty to say it without trying to act like you are actually having a discussion.

You can take your "fantasy football" crap and shove it back where it belongs.

Your elitism and barely disguised comtempt for people who do not agree with you is disgusting.

You STILL have not responded to my point, and instead chose to engage in this latest bout of lying and personal attacks. I am done with you. Your constant lies, evasions, and refusal to act in anything approaching an honest manner are no longer worth the trouble.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, looks to me like 8 people have responded to you (including me) with nothing to show for it. Why respond to you when you do not bother to read / understand posts.

Reread the previous posts and come back when you have an answer to them better than a request for BTS and other to prove why it should be so.

So again -- reread the posts, come up with an intelligent and supported counter argument that does not come off like a crybaby, and then the discussion will progress. Otherwise -- back to your fantasy football league.

[Philistine]

Slapdragon (or anyone else who doesn't want to return to 1.05 force values). A few questions, obviously you don't have to answer them, but I would think they would be helpful in focusing the "debate" and perhaps elevating it....

1. Do you feel that the 1.05 and previous equal allocations were fair from a balance point of view?

2. Do you feel that the 1.1 allocations are fair from a balance point of view?

3. Do you believe that in playing QB's, especially ladder play, that equality is a goal?

4. Do you feel that the equal allocations of 1.05 and before were notably more historically inaccurate than those in 1.1?

5. Do you feel that the allocations of 1.1 are historically accurate for the non-American units--particularly Free French and Polish?

6. What purpose did the change in allocations serve?

7. Do you feel that purpose outweighed any real or perceived lack of fairness in the 1.1 allocations.

FWIW, my answers are:

1. Yes, I though 1.5 was fair balance-wise.

2. I don't know if they are fair, but the seem unfair because they are different. Because of this, I have the nagging suspicion that my side-choice will now have a direct impact on the outcome.

3. I believe that equality is a major goal.

4. I think both 1.05 & 1.1's point allocation scheme are entirely arbitrary, and are ahistorical because of the constraint that the point total will be the same.

5. No. But I'm not sure it's a big deal. But claims that the American and Polish point allocations should be the same seems disingenuous.

6. I wish I knew. Charles' explanation doesn't really seem to follow, and I've seen nothing else from BTS.

7. No. The (very arguable) increase in historicality has undermined my belief that I can choose either the Allied or German side in a battle and not be penalized from the beginning.

Just my $.02. Trying to keep this as on-track and non-personal as possible.

--Philistine

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Philistine:

Slapdragon (or anyone else who doesn't want to return to 1.05 force values). A few questions, obviously you don't have to answer them, but I would think they would be helpful in focusing the "debate" and perhaps elevating it....

1. Do you feel that the 1.05 and previous equal allocations were fair from a balance point of view?

I had no problem with it. The Germans were a little over balanced with their armed half tracks and infantry (properly used) but I have found that most players did not know how to use these weapons so while two players of Fionn's level might find some imbalance toward Germans, most would not.

2. Do you feel that the 1.1 allocations are fair from a balance point of view?

I think it is equal. I have won once as Germans, am winning another, and playing two others. I, politely, challenge you to a battle. You play Allies, I play Germans. If you can skunk me, then maybe I am wrong.

3. Do you believe that in playing QB's, especially ladder play, that equality is a goal?

Yes. Of course, I play this game for its historical interest, but balance in ladder play is important.

4. Do you feel that the equal allocations of 1.05 and before were notably more historically inaccurate than those in 1.1?

Yes. For reasons I have already discussed.

5. Do you feel that the allocations of 1.1 are historically accurate for the non-American units--particularly Free French and Polish?

They were essentially armed and supplied by the allies, as were the Brazillians and the Jewish Brigades. Their support and supply level, organization, training, and equipment was allied.

6. What purpose did the change in allocations serve?

a. Historical. b. Play balance (which I believe is less important since the game was fairly well balanced before except in certain situations.)

7. Do you feel that purpose outweighed any real or perceived lack of fairness in the 1.1 allocations.

Since I do not believe it hurt the fairness of the game, and may have even balanced the scales a bit at the high end of play. In any case German armour lovers can still choose to play armour if they want the heavies in smaller scenarios, and still get a good balance of other forces.

However -- like I said Phillistine. You are an adult, have good arguments, and are a right to be concerned. Take up my challenge, play the allies, and prove your side by skunking me. If the balance has shifted to the allies all that far you should be able to run circles around me. Let's put it to the test.

[Philistine]

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

{snip}

Since I do not believe it hurt the fairness of the game, and may have even balanced the scales a bit at the high end of play. In any case German armour lovers can still choose to play armour if they want the heavies in smaller scenarios, and still get a good balance of other forces.

However -- like I said Phillistine. You are an adult, have good arguments, and are a right to be concerned. Take up my challenge, play the allies, and prove your side by skunking me. If the balance has shifted to the allies all that far you should be able to run circles around me. Let's put it to the test.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt playing will prove much. First, as I am, at best, mediocre, I doubt I can "prove" much of anyting, or that a single game, regardless of the outset would show anything.

Also, I'm not so sure that it is the Germans who are handicapped by the changes--the abilty of Germans to cherry pick specialized infantry types is exascerbated by their increase in infantry points, and the vehicle points means even more Pumas. Of course, I'm not convinced the Allies are handicapped. I just don't have the "confort level that I had." I alternate between playing Allies & Germans.

If you'd still like to play, that'd be fine. Just send me a setup (E-mail's in the profile).

I appreciate your answers. Not sure I agree with all of them , but that's OK.

--Philistine

[Bigdog]

Hey Slapy I will give you a roll in the hay But lets make it a larger battle

QB 3000pts

Combined Arms, Meeting Engagement,

Fionn Kelly's Panther 76 Rule

Large Map, Farmland, Small Hills, Moderate Trees, Clear & Dry

What ya think Bro? ohhh I will take Allied

Big Dog

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

[WolfLord]

Oh...Jeez...Ill have to come out of retirement for a second just to shake my head at Slapdragon's last few posts...pitiful.

[Slapdragon]

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

Hey Slapy I will give you a roll in the hay But lets make it a larger battle

QB 3000pts

Combined Arms, Meeting Engagement,

Fionn Kelly's Panther 76 Rule

Large Map, Farmland, Small Hills, Moderate Trees, Clear & Dry

What ya think Bro? ohhh I will take Allied

Big Dog

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

Next Sunday lets start. I am winning two more games as German right now, minorly loosing one (not a skunk), and am facing Meeks, Cheng, and Phillistine starting this week. I love it that the Germans are considered so weak and impossible to win with. Makes me seem like the best player in the world that I can win playing them so often!

Next week though you can show me how lame the Germans are.

[Slapdragon]

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

Oh...Jeez...Ill have to come out of retirement for a second just to shake my head at Slapdragon's last few posts...pitiful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagreement with the duetchland uber alles clan always causes that reaction, so I appreciate the vote of confidence. As a defender of historical in a wasteland of fantasy, I am happy to be here to keep the conversation going. Looking back at the 108 Make German Tanks more powerful threads and 110 Germans are invinceable threads, it is a needed role -- counterbalancing the propaganda.

[Bigdog]

It will be an honor to have my ass kick by one as great as you I will send you the set up now, and go ahead and send it back next Sunday or sooner if you want. See you on the dance floor.

Big Dog

[Slapdragon]

KDQ?\riginally posted by Bigdog:

It will be an honor to have my ass kick by one as great as you I will send you the set up now, and go ahead and send it back next Sunday or sooner if you want. See you on the dance floor.

Big Dog

[Panther131]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I love it that the Germans are considered so weak and impossible to win with. Makes me seem like the best player in the world that I can win playing them so often! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Slap, I was never of the opinion that the germans were impossible to win with. My thoughts are that while both version 1.05 and 1.1 are different in point allocations, the fight is relatively the same in eveness. My only concern with the points was that, when I was playing the germans, I like to use the big cats...so naturaly I was/and am still slightly upset at the new reduction in armor for the germans. Oh and, I like to play 1000 or under battles most of the time, while never really exceeding 1250 pt QB. So, now if you will indulge me at some point, I would be happy to show the ways of a commander.

Of course, you have your hands full, so I suggest you take your time and prepare for a...well...I let you imagine that part. But anyways, let me know when you are ready...I play both TCP/IP and PBEM. Remember I like smaller battles, so we can do 2 out of three or heck lets make it a lifelong record of wins and loses.

I challenge you.

[Guest AbnAirCav]

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

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

<HR WIDTH="95%" ALIGN=CENTER>

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).

<HR WIDTH="95%" ALIGN=CENTER>

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off, I prefer to let my opponent pick his preference of side, since I enjoy playing either. I have NOT played more PBEM as the German than Allied.

That being said, I'm concerned that the German player is now in a position to need to pick cannon-armed halftracks out of the vehicle category in order to be equivalent to the Allied player. I don't like that, no matter which side I'm on. I sure would prefer this as a user selectable "option".

Perhaps I need to be educated on the production numbers of the cannon-armed halftracks since when playing a human opponent I have so far avoided choosing any vehicles where less than 500 were fielded. Is there a good source on the web for numbers of each cannon-armed halftrack model that were produced & fielded? (Heck, I don't mind buying a good reference, either, if one can be recommended. Does Bruce Culver's New Vanguard Series #25, "Sdkfz 251 Half Track 1939-1945" have these numbers? Or Bryan Perrett's "German Armored Cars and Reconnaissance Half Tracks 1939­1945"?)

Finally, at the risk of incurring the wrath of those engaging in personal attacks, I must say that Jeff Heidman's posts on this subject have been very persuasive & convincing ...

--Keith

(edited to clean up formatting)

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

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131:

Actually Slap, I was never of the opinion that the germans were impossible to win with. My thoughts are that while both version 1.05 and 1.1 are different in point allocations, the fight is relatively the same in eveness. My only concern with the points was that, when I was playing the germans, I like to use the big cats...so naturaly I was/and am still slightly upset at the new reduction in armor for the germans. Oh and, I like to play 1000 or under battles most of the time, while never really exceeding 1250 pt QB. So, now if you will indulge me at some point, I would be happy to show the ways of a commander.

Of course, you have your hands full, so I suggest you take your time and prepare for a...well...I let you imagine that part. But anyways, let me know when you are ready...I play both TCP/IP and PBEM. Remember I like smaller battles, so we can do 2 out of three or heck lets make it a lifelong record of wins and loses.

I challenge you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As posted earlier, I take you up on the challenge. To the field of honor.

Also: I am not one for sticking to the same old boring meeting engagements with combined arms. After this is settled, we can have an armoured unit versus an infantry unit, attacking a town, defending with a mech unit, all sorts of fun! Lots of historical and interesting (and mostly fair) combinations are interesting to play.

[Slapdragon]

One issue that has come up many times on the board is on historical and proof. The issue is, does BTS have to prove to players like Jeff Heidman why they did something was correct each time it is questioned, or does the people wanting to change the game to something more to their liking have to present evidence that the change should be made. As can be seen in this discussion, it is a major sticking point, and is an issue a lot since something like 20 calls are made a week to change the game, only a few of which include an argument complete with evidence and a good rationale.

In order to explain why it is impractical for BTS to defend the game each time someone wants the Tiger's armour beefed up because Sherman killed it, I have posted a very short discussion of proof, historical or otherwise, on discussion groups. Requiring some system of proof in arguments may seem elitest to some, but I commend you to topics such as Rexford's discusions of ballistics to show you how good preperation and a complete understanding of a topic, presented well, can leade to better results in the discussions.

Paradigms and History: Proving your point on a discussion group: http://www.slapdragon.org/ph.html

[Guest AbnAirCav]

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

As a defender of historical in a wasteland of fantasy ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While you are articulate, I frankly don't understand your contention that you are serving as a "defender of historical in a wasteland of fantasy"? The "fantasy football" scoffing, insults and denigration of those who disagree with you, however well articulated, do not influence others such as myself who do prefer historical over "gamey" battles and would prefer a more reasoned discussion.

I would, indeed, be interested in a reasoned explanation as to how the change has actually resulted in better historical matchups, as a refutation of Jeff Heidman's point. I am honestly concerned that my German opponents will now feel compelled to purchase more Pumas in order to achieve an equivalence in what Steve has called "combat effective vehicles".

[Wolfe]

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

QB 3000pts

Combined Arms, Meeting Engagement,

Fionn Kelly's Panther 76 Rule<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been wondering about the impact of the changes as well, and have been going through some sample force choices. It seems to me that the German player now may have an overall edge despite having fewer armor points.

If both sides go infantry-heavy, the German player in a 3000pt QB can afford (all reg units) 4 Pz Gren (Mot) Co, 1 Pz Gren (Mot) Plt, and 1 VG SMG Plt. The Amis get 3 Rif-44 Co and 4 Rif-44 Plts. So that's 13 Ger PzGren platoons and 1 VG SMG plt vs. 13 US Rif-44 plts. FP decidedly goes to the Axis player (the staying power of a 12-man squad can only help so much against a 41% FP advantage at 100m).

The Allied player would likely have to counter with a good deal of arty (though the Axis player can still have 2 or 3 120mm FOs himself) or have atleast 2 mobile HE belchers left after all is said and done with the tank fight to be able to beat back the German infantry. So the Allied player may *not* want to use his extra armor points to stock up on hordes of Hellkittens.

And even with this number of points spent on infantry, the Axis player can still get 2 Hetzers, 1 StugIV, 2 120mm FOs, and a 251/9 Assault. Although infantry-heavy, it's still a reasonably balanced force, IMO.

The US can afford 3 81mm FOs, 2 Hellcats, and 3 M4's. Which doesn't quite take advantage of the extra armor points for the Allies. To do so would require subtracting infantry or arty, making the inf situation even worse.

The prob isn't as severe at 1000 pts (1 Pz Gren (Mot) Co and 2 VG SMG plts vs. 1 Rif-44 Co and 1 Rif-44 plt), but it seems to get worse for the Allies as you go up in points.

Though I haven't played enough to get a real feel for it, it does seem to tilt towards the Axis to me.

Erm. Hope I didn't ruin your QB, guys. Sorry. But feel free to prove me wrong.

BTW, BTS must have really thought the Assault HTs were a truly significant prob to make these changes. In 1.05, armor and inf points were the same. In 1.1b16, the Allies got 33% more armor than Axis and infantry stayed equal. By 1.1b23 (or perhaps 1.1b22), armor went up to 50% more for Allied and inf went to 11% more for Axis (presumably to compensate for the extra Allied armor???). If the Assault HTs were this significant of a prob, wouldn't it have been easier to just move the M8 HMC to the vehicles category and not change the point structure? Just a thought.

- Chris

[Slapdragon]

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

  While you are articulate, I frankly don't understand your contention that you are serving as a "defender of historical in a wasteland of fantasy"? The "fantasy football" scoffing, insults and denigration of those who disagree with you, however well articulated, do not influence others such as myself who do prefer historical over "gamey" battles and would prefer a more reasoned discussion.

  I would, indeed, be interested in a reasoned explanation as to how the change has actually resulted in better historical matchups, as a refutation of Jeff Heidman's point. I am honestly concerned that my German opponents will now feel compelled to purchase more Pumas in order to achieve an equivalence in what Steve has called "combat effective vehicles".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem, you have just missed lots of other discussions. This is not a slam on you, but read the posts leading up to this and you will read all this.

First off see my article on why we need to prove the game is wrong rather than BTS prove the game is correct at: http://www.slapdragon.org/ph.html and you will understand that Jeff et al, by refusing to offer any proof that the game is not correct, is making a fundemantal error, sort of like someone asking you to prove their are no UFOs. Thus I call myself the defender half joking and half serious because every week 2-3 posts go up on this board that go something like this: My Tiger was killed by a Sherman, CM sucks, changes the game. Invariably it is a German tank killed by an allied tank, and a call to make allies weaker and Germans stronger. Invariably it also has no support, but demands BTS to pay attention and spend time fixing what they have not even bothered researching. Onto this band wagon will pile a dozen peopel who support any strengthing of the Germans. Once in a while it happens to the allies also, but it is most commonly a request for BTS to make the Germans stronger, and no one is willing to come up with a solid reason why, only try and shove the ball into BTS's court and have them explain why a Sherman 75 can kill a Tiger at any range.

The issues at hand, no matter how they are hidden, is does this change reflect reality and is it fair. To prove it does not reflect reality someone needs to come up with historical support that the Germans had as many or more tanks than the allies at the front. Note that does not mean that locally they had more tanks, since armoured formations do have more tanks in them, and German armoured formations tangled with Allied Infantry and Combined Arms / Mech forces numerous times. What is under discussion is combined arms. So, taking combined arms into account, is their justification for limits, and can those limits be extended to reduced German armoured forces. If you read "Bastogne: The Story of the First Eight Days in Which the 101st Airborne Division was Closed Within the Ring of German Forces." you see that even locked into a salient, the 101st still had more armour at the front than the German combined arms force that was attacking it, until day 7 when a full armoured division's elements were thrown at it. It you read "Patton at Bay" you will find out that US Infantry division each had attached armoured battalions, and that US forces relied on their advantage in tanks to make up for a lack of infantry. Dunnigan, in "How to Make War" points out that the US forces in Europe 1944-1945 had more tanks, assigned farther down the infantry chain than the Germans, but that they lacked infantry, a serious problem that resulted in numerous band aids to increase infantry strength. The books "Biennial Reports of the Chief of Staff of the United States Army to the Secretary of War: July 1, 1939-June 30, 1945." presents a clear picture of the 90 division gamble and how US forces ended up with more armour but not enough infantry at the front, and that the Germans used other types of forces such as armed half trackes, armed infantry, and towed AT guns to make up for their lack of tanks and assault guns. More of the German desperation in terms of lack of armour can be seen in "Military Improvisations During the Russian Campaign." were German commanders used various eratz forces to attrit tanks and infantry waves, leaving armour for mobile shwerpunkt forces.

So historically, there is lots of evidence that Germans had fewer tanks at the front, used lots of other means to attrit tank attacks, and did not rely on firepower as much as the allies, at least in combined arms units. I shoudl note here that nothing stops the German player from playing an armoured force, which can be made to look an awful lot like a combined arms force without much effort just not by spending all the points on tanks. Germans did use armoured heavy units for mobile counter attack. They were not combined arms or mech units but Panzer units tasked with shock effect.

Next the contention is that somehow by restircting the Axis tank purchase number that the game is unbalanced. I am playing 5 people right now, and have won two as German. Meeks is playing me as German. I will soon be playing Panther and others. I suspect that it is balanced, and that the change actually levelled a play balance problem at the highest levels found in play testing, but I have always found the game fair, with enough luck to make sure even the best player will fall once in a while. But we wont know if it is imbalanced until we play some games. Lots of them maybe, at least 5 for sure. If the Axis gets skunked in QBs, not just looses but looses badly, then this contentiion may be true, but just proclaiming that the Germans are doomed is idiocy without some sort of test.

One contention of fairness is that tanks are worth more than infantry. This is absurd prima facie: If it were the case, then all we would have to do is define how much more tanks should cost to make it fair, and then make our arguments to BTS.

So the two basic arguments aside, you have some players who just want to buy the big tanks in small games, and the player who want ultimate choice, what I call fantasy football combinations. In the first case there is a solution that resquires no coding: choose armour and ask the allied player to choose combined arms. An easy solution shouted down with no real reason given. The solution would still work.

The second is truly an attempt to turn the game from a historical wargame to fantasy football. In reality forces had limitations in equipment. Sure, we buy equipment, but we have restrictions on what we buy based on what month it is and have we divide up our money. We cannot buy 100 bazookas and nothing else, because historically no commander sent 100 zook teams into battle unsupported. Audie Murphy, in the action he got the CMH, wanted more armour support, but the armour was spread to thing and his unit could only get 2 M10s.

So, in face of this attack on the historical nature of the game some people rebel. But it is also important to remeber that taking the Hiedman route of constantly asking BTS to prove why they did something is a vacant policy. If something is important enough to change, then it is up to us to build an argument based on fact, and then offer a better model that BTS can program into the next release. In 4 running thread, no one against the change has been willing to do this.

So I may be joking when I say that I am the guardian of history, but grain of truth to follow the grain of conciet. Also, the knowledge that all of the supporting evidence will discussed above will likely be ignored by a very few people suffering so deeply from cognitive dissonance that they cannot change their mind even if God handed the information to them on a scroll. Myself, I am playing Pamther and others in gentleman's contests. If I am wrong about play balance and we get some evidence of it then I am willing to admit it. You are not likely to find that in the more vocal of the other side.

[Guest AbnAirCav]

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

No problem, you have just missed lots of other discussions. This is not a slam on you, but read the posts leading up to this and you will read all this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree with your assumption about my lack of knowledge, because I have been following several of the discussions, hence my educated concern about the "fantasy football" taunts that have been issued with increasing frequency. I don't claim, however, to have read all of the threads, but I have read all of the posts in this one and have not seen Jeff's original point addressed or refuted.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First off see my article on why we need to prove the game is wrong rather than BTS prove the game is correct at: http://www.slapdragon.org/ph.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I had read it, and it did not address the reason for the change. It appeared, IMHO, to once again evade the point of this thread, prompting my second post. Perhaps we have a disconnect in that my (& it appears others') concern is due to a change that has been recently implemented, and that some of the reasoning given does not seem to bear up under scrutiny, hence the request for clarification when the original reasoning is shown to be apparently faulty. It appears to me that there is a difference between requesting a change (which I agree with you should require adequate justification and background), and requesting a clarification on the reasoning for a change that was implemented when the reasoning appears murky ... but perhaps you don't see a distinction?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... because every week 2-3 posts go up on this board that go something like this: My Tiger was killed by a Sherman, CM sucks, changes the game. Invariably it is a German tank killed by an allied tank, and a call to make allies weaker and Germans stronger. Invariably it also has no support, but demands BTS to pay attention and spend time fixing what they have not even bothered researching. Onto this band wagon will pile a dozen peopel who support any strengthing of the Germans. Once in a while it happens to the allies also, but it is most commonly a request for BTS to make the Germans stronger, and no one is willing to come up with a solid reason why, only try and shove the ball into BTS's court and have them explain why a Sherman 75 can kill a Tiger at any range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While the description is a little exaggerated, IMO, yes I have seen those posts, and recognize them as an unfortunate side effect of the success of CM. But, that's not what this thread is about, and lumping all queries and posts to this discussion board into that one category is not productive, IMO. I can understand folks losing patience, but I believe it's important to try to keep to the topic of a thread, and not get distracted.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The issues at hand, no matter how they are hidden, is does this change reflect reality and is it fair. To prove it does not reflect reality someone needs to come up with historical support that the Germans had as many or more tanks than the allies at the front.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, this is where we appear to have a different understanding on the purpose of the change. If you'll refer to Charles' reason #1, it has more to do, as I understand it, with the force mixture available for selection in the game to the players, and less to do with historical reality. But, as Jeff has shown, the change that was implemented now puts pressure on my German opponent to choose more Pumas since he can not use the points on tanks yet needs to keep up with the Allies "in combat effective vehicles". (In case there is a misunderstanding on this point, let me clarify that I consider constantly encountering numerous Pumas to be ahistorical, "a bad thing", and not fair to either the German or the Allied player.)

Along with that, my recollection from the past threads that discussed putting in a historical/rarity option was that BTS stated that the current system of Quick Battles is not meant to be historical at all, that it is intended to allow equal opportunities to each side. This was explained, IIRC, as their reason for the current point values being based on combat effectiveness, not rarity. Their position was that we would need to wait for CM2 to have an option for more historical force compositions (which I'm looking forward to), and that it would be optional. This previous position by BTS probably contributes to my questioning the defense of this present point allocation change by others as for historical purposes (which Jeff has shown, IMO, to be incorrect, anyway).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If something is important enough to change, then it is up to us to build an argument based on fact, and then offer a better model that BTS can program into the next release.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely agree. But, evidently I missed the threads that did convince BTS to make this change to point allocations. If you could point me to them, they most likely will provide the information that I'm interested in, and I would appreciate it.

Thank you for your time & energy in posting your lengthy response, it is appreciated.

[Henri]

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

   Is there a good source on the web for numbers of each cannon-armed halftrack model that were produced & fielded?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The West Front and East Front II games unit databases mention how many of each unit was produced.This is the database I have to use to get clear info about units.

BTW, AbnAirCav, I appreciate your calm and reasoned posting on this question. I also don't think that it is productive to try to put all those who question point values as ignorant German tank-huggers (such people might exist, but they are not the ones I am interested in). I like to read about this question (my mind is not made up about the imbalance issue), but I could do without the flame wars.

Henri

[This message has been edited by Henri (edited 01-21-2001).]