Points allocation redux--artillery & totals

[Vanir]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that the philosophical/historical arguments have been beaten to death, I too have been playing around with force selection and have been a bit surprised at the results. I earlier posted some setups Joe did for 1000 pt MEs, and would recommend looking at them if you have not already, as well as Wolfe's. Here are some of my own.

For a 1000 pt combined arms QB ME typical purchases could go like this:

US

3 44 Rifle platoons

3 .50 .Cal MGs

2 Bazookas (veteran)

1 4.2 in. Mortar FOs

1 M18 Hellcat

1 E8 Sherman (76)

1 M8 Greyhound

German

3 Fallschirmjager platoons

3 shreck (comes with the platoons)

2 MG42 HMGs

1 120mm FO

2 Hetzers

2 Pumas

1 234/3 AC

US has the advantage in arty (120mm only has 50 rounds). Germans have advantage in infantry (Fallsguys eat US 44 for lunch). Armor looks like a toss up despite limited choices for the German.

Just for the heck of it (or perhaps because I prefer the larger battles) I also set up some 3000 pt MEs

US

9 44 Rifle platoons

6 .50 Cal. MGs

6 Bazookas (veteran)

2 57mm AT guns (flank protection)

2 M3A1 HTs

2 4.2 in. FOs

2 81mm FOs

2 Greyhounds

6 M8 HMCs (infantry support)

4 M10 Wolverines

Alternately you can go heavy armor. Instead of the Greyhound/HMC/M10 you get:

4 Jumbos (76)

1 Greyhound

Germans

9 SS Mot. platoons

6 MG42 HMGs

6 Shrecks (veteran)

2 50mm Pak38 guns (flank security)

2 Kubelwagons

3 120mm FOs

2 81mm FOs

3 Jadgpanthers

3 239/3 (inf. support)

2 251/9 HT (inf. support)

Instead of 3 Jadgpanthers you could go with 7 Hetzers or 3 Panthers or 2 Tigers and 2 Mk IVs or 4 Wespes and 4 Hetzers or 2 King Tigers.

Lots of other possibilities.

Once again the US has a small arty advantage, the Germans an infantry advantage. Despite the fewer armor category points I don't really see a disadvantage for the Germans there with armor.

I really expected the Germans to have a hard time countering Allied armor and having to rely on an infantry heavy force. I was surprised to see that this is not so. Philosophical/historical questions aside, as a practical matter the Germans seem to be able to achieve armor parity in both large and small QBs.

But surely the changes must have some limiting effect on the Germans? They do. At the 1000 pt level the Germans can simply get one big ticket tank (Panther or Jadgpanther) or 2 smaller ones. The Puma is a big help here though. You could go for one Jadgpanther and 2 Pumas to guard the flanks from Allied fast movers (Greyhound and Hellcat). The real limitation is that the German cannot use SP arty at the 1000 pt level. He must get any dedicated close support units from the vehicle category. These would be 234/3 and 251/9.

At the 3000 pt level the restrictions are felt much less. Germans can use SP arty as long as they go with cheap anti-armor (Hetzer). If they go big ticket in armor they must use vehicles as close support.

Conclusions:

In none of the setups did I find an Allied purchase that the Germans could not match up with.

Germans must rely more on vehicles for close support and anti-armor, especially in small battles. This seems to be the exact result Charles was looking for in his explanation. Fortunately, they seem to have vehicles that are well suited for that. Pumas are dangerous to any Allied TD or fast flanker. 234/3 and 251/9 have been the Germans best kept secret.

I don't know if these changes are fair. I don't know if they increase historical accuracy. But it seems clear to me that they do not put the Germans at a disadvantage compared to the Allies. Nor do they force the Germans to use an infantry heavy force (although that is a viable option). Rather than limiting German armor, the net effect is likely to be fewer German SP arty and assault gun units (StuG42, Wespe, Hummel ect) and more armored cars and HTs. It's true that the 75mm gun of the 234/3 and 251/9 does not pack the punch of the 105mm of the Wespe and StuH42. This may be the one real disadvantage. If you want to use SP arty and assault guns as German, play a large QB and pick Hetzers as your tank killers.

The Germans also benefit from having tanks that are very good against both armor and infantry (Tiger, Panther and KT). This makes dedicated close support not as critical as for the Allies, whose tanks are generally only good at one or the other.

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

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

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

[Slapdragon]

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

 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off let me say that I agree that this is a bad thing, but a bad thing that cannot be fixed in CM1, and must wait for CM2. The reason is simple. To fix it in CM1 you could drop the Puma all together. The list already has a monthly call for a Maus tank, dropping the Puma would ignite a furor that you cannot believe. CM2 will solve it by adding an optional rarity factor system. For those who want to see it in CM 1, they need to ask if delaying CM2 by a couple of months is worth it for it to appear in CM1. As you say, I am looking farward to this option also, but if you want to see a firestorm, look at the firestorm ignited when it was originally suggested tipped off by players who claimed it would make it impossible to play Germans. In fact, BTS got to the point that it was putting "this system is optional" before each post it made to avoid flames of them by player who were scared that the German heavies may be out of reach in smaller QBs.

I should also note that this system is essentially optional. If you feel hurt by it you can refuse to play 1.1 on QB games, you can request that the allies play combined arms while you, the German player plays Armour as a setting, you can play a scenario, or you can get a map and play over agreed terrain with an open force. It was the rejection of these options, as written earlier, the made many people convinced this was another argument on the level of making the Tiger impregnable to 75mm shells, that and participation by Mr. Hiedman

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK -- this is the Fantasy Football argument, which is why I thought you had not been reading previous posts on this subject. Charles stated that meeting engagement QBs were not historical in one post, which has changed over time to mean Charles thinks everything about QBs are inaccurate and ahistorical - a significant change from the original meaning of that post. Here is the thing though, if you want to play a historical wargame, then there will be restrictions on the forces based on the reality of the battlefield. The game you are playing is a could have been, and you are exploring the possibility by trying to make factors conform as closely as possible to reality. In reality - no commander sent out 100 bazookas into battle with no support, no commander sent 50 trucks into battle with no support, in reality commanders were faced with limits. Those limits are modeled in CM with a choice of a type of force -- following broadly four types of combat teams that can be faced in the field.

If however, you do not want restrictions on the combinations of units -- open bidding for those 100 bazooka teams or whatever, then why stop their. Sure, it was not historical to have a 76mm Sherman with 24 rounds of tungsten, but why can't I get one if I want? Why do I need to buy in platoons and companies, why can't I buy leaders and squads al a carte? It would be nice as the allies to but a battalion in some situations, but the 57mm guns and 60mm mortars are a drag, why can't I, as the fantasy football commander, just leave them home and have some more of something I want ordered up? Why can't I get a Pershing in June 1944? At what point do you draw the line on historical reality, even in QBs. If QBs are not historical, and we are going to disqualify a historical change based on it, why just cater to a single constituency who yells the loudest and most often, lets just dump the entire patina of historical in QBs and let each side buy units from any time period, equipped with any combination of shells, in any combination, thus guaranting a fair fall of the dice. After all, we both can now buy Panthers -- totally equal. That is why I and others defend the historical nature of the game, so this does not become the end logical result of rolling back historical changes. Even in QBs, the more accurate to history it can be made, the better for me. And unlike many QB players I have played infantry, mechanized, and armoured settings against anything in the book for QBs, defense, offense, you name it. All played well and made historical "could have beens" that, except for a rare very bad map, were pretty even to boot.

As for how BTS made the change, you need to recognize that conversations occur in other areas than this board, that BTS has a largish beta team, and sometimes a change can be made based on play testing, based on a dozen different threads that come from this board that have been collated by BTS, or even from further research by the creators. I do know that a discussion of why Germans and Allies had even nearly infantry (Germans should have more) occurred in two lines about rarity -- you will have to search for them using the search function, but I cannot tell you if this was picked up by BTS -- or if they developed this from personal research and beta testing. I can tell you it was beta tested and found fair, and Charles says he DID take the historical issue into account, see Vanir's post and reread his comments, it was just that a balance issue first brought it to his attention.

One of the probable reasons BTS does not weigh into this despite four threads is that anything dealing with German armour leads to cognitive dissonance to a degree you will only find in extremist politics. People love German tanks. A core of players only play Germans just for German tanks. They are sexy, are their edge in combat, and dang it, it is just unfair that historical reality get between them and their tanks (of course some wont play armour as a setting despite this). I know BTS knows about this group because they have commented on it. In a similar about making German tanks more powerful (lacking in proof as to why this should be done) BTS came on the board and explained their reasoning in a clear and concise fashion. CavScout and I were on the side of people who wanted the game changed proving it, Jeff Heidman was on the side of have BTS proving why the tanks were modelled correctly (in that veign I could ask you to prove to me you were not gay, were not a communist, were not discharged unfairly from the military, a whole list of things until you spend your day doing nothing but proving you are not something, which is why that article is important). Mr. Heidman grew angry when BTS explained their position and ran to Usenet were he posted that BTS was a bunch of bumbs and anyone who supports them sycophants. Ask Cavscout for the exact test if you like -- it explains why patience with him is slim for many, and also may explain why BTS is best off NOT coming into here. Even if they did explain the reasoning in detail, it wont sway anyone, and it more than likely wont generate any reasoned response, as past history.

As for the flame wars -- I wish they would stop also, but you cannot control that sort of thing. If you notice, most of why Jeff is against me is he sees my requirements of proof as elitest, and Cavscout has problems posting without getting a sour response, the current flames started when Jeff flamed Cavscout 3 subjects back, then grew worse when Cavscout let fly at Jeff rather than just ignoring him, and then grew way worse when I let Jeff get my goat. No one says anyone who disagrees is a German hugger -- they exist but I am having a good conversation with anyone who has one with me -- Panther and Phillistine and I are even playing a gentleman's contest, which I will also play against you and anyone else who wants (who is adult -- no screamers). Even Jeff is not a German hugger -- he is more devils advocate and anti-BTS from his Usenet postings.

Thank you for calming things down. I hope indeed it will last at this level. Cavscout comes back from a military deployment on Sunday so I will encourage him to add to anything to my posts he desires.

[Slapdragon]

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

I don't know if these changes are fair. I don't know if they increase historical accuracy. But it seems clear to me that they do not put the Germans at a disadvantage compared to the Allies. Nor do they force the Germans to use an infantry heavy force (although that is a viable option). Rather than limiting German armor, the net effect is likely to be fewer German SP arty and assault gun units (StuG42, Wespe, Hummel ect) and more armored cars and HTs. It's true that the 75mm gun of the 234/3 and 251/9 does not pack the punch of the 105mm of the Wespe and StuH42. This may be the one real disadvantage. If you want to use SP arty and assault guns as German, play a large QB and pick Hetzers as your tank killers.

The Germans also benefit from having tanks that are very good against both armor and infantry (Tiger, Panther and KT). This makes dedicated close support not as critical as for the Allies, whose tanks are generally only good at one or the other.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the things I think you are seeing Vanir is that, in points value, a lot of the points in allied tanks are based on its ability to hurt infantry. Look at the Panther Versus the best US medium, the middle range model of the E-8. Even at the best E8 does not have the armour or firepower to make an even match with a Panther, but while the Panther is not bad against infantry, even the lowest M4 is better. So its points are sunk into being good against the running man. US TDs are opposite, and not well armoured to boot. For the most part they are dog fighters, or at worst supporting vehicles like the M10. A dog fighter gets one shot, and if it kills it gets another, otherwise it is meat.

So the US must usually mix and match tanks, as must the British (whose firefly is less effective against infantry) keeping a broader ranger of AFVs on hand, lacking one true all purpose tank until the expensive Pershing comes along.

What this means is that the 76 armed Shermans cannot free themselves until they have dealt with any German armour that may be lurking in the area unles an effective screen can be built, and in that tank to tank they are at a slight disadvantage. If they come out of it on top, 50 50 chance, then they still face some powerful infantry AT weapons, but they have more chance to be able to effect the German infantry.

Look at your 3000 point list. The Tiger / MkIV hunting combination is a killer group, each having good all range skills to deal with a wide range of situations. They cut through the wolverines, but have more difficulty with a TD / tank combination, which is the allied problem: in tank to tank the Sherman is overpriced. Only if left alone to fight infantry with its own infantry support does it really become a fighter, while the TDs may be able to kill the German tanks, even by swamping them as the M10 has to do, when its over, assuming they triumph they just are not much good against infantry. At the same time a surviving Tiger, mostly impervious to US AT weapons not carried by tanks, can really ruin the day of an infantry advance.

I think these issues make the two sides you present very equal. Very good post Vanir.

[Vanir]

You know what unit is on the rise in 1.1? The Tiger tank.

I used to consider it something of a dog in CM. But the new hull rotation thing has helped very slow turreted units more than any other type. With fewer points to spend on SP arty or assault guns, dual purpose vehicles are the name of the day for Germans. The Tiger's 88 is pretty good against infantry and it has lots of ammo, for the machine guns too. When the tungsten bug is fixed it will be even a bigger star.

You are right about the 2 Tiger/2 Mk IV combo being a winner. That's anti-armor and infantry support rolled into one. Add a few Pumas or 234/3s and a battalion of Stormtroopers and I would feel pretty confident as the German player.

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

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

[Polar]

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

Yes they were, both sides had 1000 pts.

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

Yes they are, both sides have 1000 pts.

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

Ladder play is a user enforced aspect of the game that BTS is in no way obligated to support. But even given this, yes, I believe they are still balanced with terrain playing a great role in "fairness" in any given QB than anything else.

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

Unless you carefully picked you opponenets, yes... far too may KTs showing up in 1.05 in small engagements and not enough infantry... usually to the German players detriment though. But this again depended on terrain.

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

No, but they weren't in 1.05 either... so that point is moot.

6. What purpose did the change in allocations serve?

See #4

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

Obviouslt BTS thought so, so they changed it to better reflect their vision of Combat Mission. What I think is inconsequential here.

Joe

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

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

[Slapdragon]

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

You know what unit is on the rise in 1.1? The Tiger tank.

I used to consider it something of a dog in CM. But the new hull rotation thing has helped very slow turreted units more than any other type. With fewer points to spend on SP arty or assault guns, dual purpose vehicles are the name of the day for Germans. The Tiger's 88 is pretty good against infantry and it has lots of ammo, for the machine guns too. When the tungsten bug is fixed it will be even a bigger star.

You are right about the 2 Tiger/2 Mk IV combo being a winner. That's anti-armor and infantry support rolled into one. Add a few Pumas or 234/3s and a battalion of Stormtroopers and I would feel pretty confident as the German player.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have always been impressed with the Tigers ability to shrug off infantry attacks. In smaller QBs I never bought them, all your ducks going into one basket, but at your 3000 point level it is a killer. Now maybe flat slabs of amrour is not what makes good practice against solid shot AP, but it seems to stop PIATs and Zooks dead in their tracks, along with gammon and rifle grenades. I still would not want to go in unsupported against infantry, but the Tiger has a better chance to survive than most other tanks.

The big 88, compared to the higher velocity 75 may not be much different in tank killing, but it carries a better HE charge and is like having a British 95 howitzer at your side. It is much better at causing pain to units in stone buildings and will make the allies space infantry more, just like a single 105 armed tank can do the same to the Germans.

It's vulnerability is slow turret and slower speed. With the MkIV to act as its partner in tag team, it becomes a good combination for leapfrog advance and mutual support. It still needs infantry and a screening force such as a HT or AC (I would avoid the Puma as over priced and stick with the 20mm armed AC and the Lynx) to keep the Hellcats away -- I have seen a Hellcat eat a Panther and a Tiger for lunch in two turns, but even with tungsten a kill is not a sure thing below 500 meters for the 76, while the 88 can kill to the extremes of the normal QB map everything but the Jumbo at longest range.

[Guest AbnAirCav]

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

First off let me say that I agree that this is a bad thing, but a bad thing that cannot be fixed in CM1, and must wait for CM2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. FWIW, I guess I'll share my approach ... what I have done, in an effort to maximize the enjoyment of both parties, is make myself a list (since my memory is not the best) of two columns, "Yes" & "No", for potential opponents. In the "Yes" column I have categories for "Okay (prefers historical)" & "Good Guys". The "No" column has categories of "Gamey" (not meant to be prejudicial, this is the term that seems to be used for those who do not feel constrained by more historically accurate force compositions, and will freely choose whatever the game permits), "Immature", & "Suspect".

So, my approach has been to play against opponents with a similar philosophical outlook, and up till now we've been able to do this within a framework of similar point allocations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I should also note that this system is essentially optional. If you feel hurt by it you can refuse to play 1.1 on QB games, you can request that the allies play combined arms while you, the German player ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It appears I may not have been clear. I don't believe I've ever "picked" the Germans in a PBEM QB ME (when I have been the German side in a PBEM QB ME it's been because my opponent went with the Allies, either through choice or coin toss). But, now when I am the Germans, it appears I'll need to become better educated on the numbers of "cannon-armed halftracks" (since I am loathe to choose the Puma), which was the point of my initial post (and it was this question that prompted me away from my usual policy of avoidance of contentious/flaming threads).

So, I believe I am only hurt by it when my opponent is German, and feels compelled to now select "combat effective vehicles" such as the Puma in ahistorical numbers in order to be equivalent.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for how BTS made the change, you need to recognize that conversations occur in other areas than this board, that BTS has a largish beta team, and sometimes a change can be made based on play testing, based on a dozen different threads that come from this board that have been collated by BTS, or even from further research by the creators.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh, heh, LOL! Ummm, I think I do recognize that & that's what some folks have been requesting, to be brought up to speed on this background information. Like you, I prefer that any changes lobbied for be backed up with convincing evidence, which I had hoped would be available to be shared with those of us who were not participants in the discussion for this change. But, perhaps this change did not occur based on our preferred approach so this background information is not available.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I can tell you it was beta tested and found fair, and Charles says he DID take the historical issue into account, see Vanir's post and reread his comments, it was just that a balance issue first brought it to his attention.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, Charles did touch upon the historical issue, and your post to this thread on "01-19-2001 09:32 PM" states that "It was fixed to increase the historical accuracy of the game". It's this historical accuracy part that confuses me, since Jeff has shown, IMHO, that not to be the result of this change in that now even the "historical" German player is being pressured to give in to the temptation of the Puma.

Thank you for your reply, & another good post.

--Keith

[Slapdragon]

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

  

  Thank you for your reply, & another good post.

--Keith<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for coming back to the issue and stepping away from the flames (which of course you never participated in). This level of conversations does well to air differences is a much more constructive fashion than was happening before. If only it stays this way .

[Guest AbnAirCav]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Henri, thanx for the info, but I need your help on this. I popped in my "Sea Lion" CD, but did not see the numbers info for the "cannon-armed halftracks" in the unit handbook database. Is this info on one of the other CD's (EF II, WF)? Also, can you tell me how to access the Unit Handbook outside of the game? I scrolled thru the CD, but did not see how.

Again, thanx,

--Keith

[Henri]

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

One of the probable reasons BTS does not weigh into this despite four threads is that anything dealing with German armour leads to cognitive dissonance to a degree you will only find in extremist politics. People love German tanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact, BTS HAS weighed in two days ago on the thread "Rocks scissors and paper..." with a clarification of their earlier posting on the subject of armor limitations.

I don't think that it is very constructive to qualify opponents of Allied Armor bonus as people who support "fantasy football" or invincible German tanks.

I have learned a lot from those discussions, and they have even brought me to choose units in small battles that I would not have chosen before. So let us continue the discussion with all due respect of differing opinions.

Henri

[Henri]

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

   Is this info on one of the other CD's (EF II, WF)? Also, can you tell me how to access the Unit Handbook outside of the game? I scrolled thru the CD, but did not see how.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that the unit info can be accessed outside of the game; also upon rechecking this morning, I found that the numbers produced are not given for all the units (but they are for most). Also you hae to click on some unit and press F2 in order to open the database, after which you have to scroll through the pages to find the units that you want.

There is a crying need for a database like the WF/EF one or like the one that we can only access in CM by selecting a unit and pressing enter. The Excel database thatDOES exist does not give access to the pages using the Excel viewer (no macros), and does not work either with the Staroffice spreadsheet program -one must absolutely use Excel for the page selection to work.

I hope that at least in CM2 the database will be available from the unit selection screen -who can rmember what the differences between all the Sdkfz250.1-9 are? (And you had better know if you are playing 1000-pt QB Meeting Engagements as the Germans...).

Henri

[Guest AbnAirCav]

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

Also you hae to click on some unit and press F2 in order to open the database, after which you have to scroll through the pages to find the units that you want.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, thanx, that's what I did but I was hoping there was an easier way I was unaware of.

Especially with all of my ASL gear boxed up and in storage (I've been moving and changing jobs) one convenient reference I've been using is the spiral bound "The HPS Simulations Encyclopedia of Land Combat", which in many cases does include numbers. (For instance, for the Puma they show "About 100 Pumas were built over a period of 12 months starting in September 1943. Distribution of the Puma was limited to four panzer divisions, each of which received a company of 25 vehicles.") Information such as this makes me reluctant to choose Pumas in a QB force structure (but I don't mind encountering them when Wild Bill puts them into his "Wiltz" scenario). They do not, unfortunately, list these numbers for the halftrack variants.

For those who may be interested, here's the example scan from the book that they have posted on the web:

[Slapdragon]

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

In fact, BTS HAS weighed in two days ago on the thread "Rocks scissors and paper..." with a clarification of their earlier posting on the subject of armor limitations.

I don't think that it is very constructive to qualify opponents of Allied Armor bonus as people who support "fantasy football" or invincible German tanks.

I have learned a lot from those discussions, and they have even brought me to choose units in small battles that I would not have chosen before. So let us continue the discussion with all due respect of differing opinions.

Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Henri, you need to read my previous posts. Some people are indeed contributing to constructive conversations, but you have others that do indeed fit my stereotype and that spawn much of the problems with these topics. BTS has commented a number of times about these people and the difficulty with discussing things with them.

The biggest problem is that a small group who espouse fantasy football style play cause a reaction post. Someone else who has not read the past posts thinks that the fantasy football is directed at them without recognizing what the post was in response to. The same problem with German only players -- everyone thinks the accusation is at them, when it is aimed at a very few people who choose to argue German superiority without numbers or support.

So, when I legitimately display a garmet that fits some people who post on this forum, why does a larger number of people step forward claiming that the garmet was also meant to fit them but it is unfair to acuse them. In most cases I feel that the biggest problem is failure to read previous posts.

[Slapdragon]

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

In fact, BTS HAS weighed in two days ago on the thread "Rocks scissors and paper..." with a clarification of their earlier posting on the subject of armor limitations.

I don't think that it is very constructive to qualify opponents of Allied Armor bonus as people who support "fantasy football" or invincible German tanks.

I have learned a lot from those discussions, and they have even brought me to choose units in small battles that I would not have chosen before. So let us continue the discussion with all due respect of differing opinions.

Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Henri, you must have better eyes than me, but BTS did not weigh in on the rock paper critique. They only thing they have weighed in on one of these threads is to shut it down when it got ugly. Can you provide the URL of the BTS comment -- I cannot find it even with a search.

[Panther131]

I had posted this in the "rock paper scissors" thread, but I think it belongs here.

Posted by Slap:

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

But Slap, that is not what is being questioned by Jeff H. I agree with you that when players of CM start to whine about a Tigers armor when that player gets brewed up by a sherman. But this is just not the case in Jeff H. 's argument. This argument is not what you are stating.

Again, while I do find that it is probably even on both sides to win especially with skilled players, my point of view is that is is too bad that one cannot use a King Tiger in a 1000 point battle. I enjoyed using the KT and having to suport it with infantry and suuport units. It wa alot of fun to do, and it definitly did not ensure a victory for the germans. Now with 1.1 that is not possible. I do not think that having one KT against say 3 allied tanks is a advantage to the axis. And this also seems to be a historical engagment, at least in unit numbers ie: 3 allied tanks to 1. However given the difference of the superiority of german mechanized division, obviously it would seem that the germans have some sort of an advantage to fight infantry. However in the name of historical accuracy, it would seem that 1.05 to 1.1 threre really is not much of a difference. With germans loading up on the quick and nimble pumas I would have to say that historical acuuracy goes out the window. Also, some might say that the germans have an advantage in the mech units by such a wide length, that CM may not really be any closer to balance then prieviosly before in the 1.05 version. So in the end, I say that it would be nice to see BTS really comment on this do that there will be some finality to the issue. I sure would like to see one dispite the previusly posted short explanations by BTS, it seem there are enough people upset about the change to warrent a response from BTS. Of course they could let the fire die out eventually by not commenting at all.

So again, I would like to say that I do not see any significant improvemnt in balance of play. Only it has been shifted to incorporate other units. I do not see any improvement in historical accuracy except that the historical inaccuracy has shifted to differnt units (the puma). So again I ask you or anybody to address these comments on why BTS has made a change. It just seems, and I may be going out on a limb here, but IMO, I believe that BTS has made the change to indirectly change the profound amount of players choosing axis over allied in CM. By making the "Big Cats" less available it lessons the appeal of playing the germans, which, has been historicaly CM's more popular side to choose.

You can disagree with me or not but more and more this is becoming a bit more clear, as it seems that nither play balance or historical acuracy has really been improved, merely it has just shifted.

Again, the reason for the change seems to be just to "fix" the abundant amount of players picking the axis, by discouraging it by reducing armor points effectively ruling out or reducing the availability or amount of "big cats" that a german player can use.

I also do see the reasoning behind this. As I said, there is a dominance in people liking playing the germans over the allied, so with the change it is quite possible that BTS was hoping to change the continuance of players choosing axis over allied.

After all, it is quite known that the german side is more popular then the allied.

Not sure if BTS has really changed anything in terms of balance, but it is obvious that the change has or will swade players to use the allies more.

BTW I know alot of you will diagree with me here but this is just an opinion, so please no flames in response.

Panther131

[Stefan Wennerberg]

It seems that there are three different types of scenarios:

1) Historical - where a realistic order of battle is determined based on the user's selection of the Theater/Campaign associated with the battle.

2) Ahistorical - where one or both sides do not have a realistic order of battle based on a Theater/Campaign. However, units used are associated with WW II western thea. Ground troops On or after D-Day.

3) Fantasy - where one or both sides have units not associated with the WW II western theater (e.g., Orcs, Battlemechs, Catapults, American Civil war troops)

I think we can rule out option three above as beyond the scope of CM1 and CM2.

Although I am usually interested in the historical scenarios/QB's, it does occur on occasion that I might want to set up a scenario (e.g., one tiger tank versus 50 jeeps to settle a TOAW argument) that is pretty much ahistorical. Thus it seems that I am interested in several things:

1) How much ea. side deviates from a historical/reasonable order of battle

2) What is the total combat effectiveness of each side's units (possib. broken down into categories)

Associated with item one a ranking from one to five (where five represents a high degree of historical basis for the QB/scenario) for each side seems sufficient.

Associated with item two assigning two different point values to ea. unit reflecting their attack and defense values would be handy.

Stefan

[Henri]

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

Hey Henri, you must have better eyes than me, but BTS did not weigh in on the rock paper critique. They only thing they have weighed in on one of these threads is to shut it down when it got ugly. Can you provide the URL of the BTS comment -- I cannot find it even with a search.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not better eyes, just a better memory (although it is usually pretty bad...). I don't know how to post a reference to another posting, but it is about the 12th message in the "Rock, scissors and paper..." thread, indicated as by Big Time Software and signed by Steve.Right after a message by me, and a few messages down from the one by JoePrivate making suggestions on specific OOBs.

[Slapdragon]

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

Not better eyes, just a better memory (although it is usually pretty bad...). I don't know how to post a reference to another posting, but it is about the 12th message in the "Rock, scissors and paper..." thread, indicated as by Big Time Software and signed by Steve.Right after a message by me, and a few messages down from the one by JoePrivate making suggestions on specific OOBs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read it, with the interesting quote:

Why would we want to design Quick Battles that catere to unrealisticly unbalanced forces? This undermines CM's basic founding principles of realism and historical balance. Put another way, open the door for "abuse" and it will be ripped of the hinges

This is in response to the request for a fantasy football setting but could be used for any discussion. I also want to point out that BTS said this: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015318.html

I can safely say that the biggest quantity of compaints we have had about CM's "realism" comes from people playing as the Germans and not winning. ... My standard answer to anybody that says "German stuff is too weak" is "prove it". Present us a compelling case as to what we might be doing wrong and we will look into it.

Although many people have said that this situation is not the same because it is a recent change, I would like to point out coding and testing has already been done, and BTS has discussed both the historical and the game play reasons for making the change. If game play is screwed up -- then we need to come up with something more useful than a general feeling that it is. If the move made it ahistorical then we likewise need to come up with some proof.

I still believe that this is the operating concept. BTS has limited time to make changes. Those changes need to make the game more accurate and historical without effecting game play. They also have to be run through play testing. Convincing BTS that this is the case is going to take more than we have seen here. That does not mean anyone is wrong, it just means that they are not coming up with a compelling argument.

http://www.slapdragon.org/ph.html

[Panther131]

Slappy: Personally, I think I have with my last post. I would like to see someone address my post. Would be interesting. Although I get this feeling that somebody will start flameing.

Anyway, my argument really cannot be proven, I dont see how it could. However that being said, it seems to be the only logical answer left, and I doubt BTS would admit it if I was right. I just do not see that much of a difference in play balance or historical accuracy from 1.05 to 1.1. The only thing left I can see (The only motive that I can see) is what I stated in my above post. Being that, the only motive I see left for wanting to change the point allocation for german armor is simple: too many people in CM like the germans. It really is that simple. You have said it yourself in so many words and I think we can all agree with that. I really do belive it was done to "tone down' the german armor lovers on this forum. (my two cents) And I really cannot prove this too you. It is the only motive left, after contemplaying the differnces in 1.05 to 1.1. Well we will see. Like I said, it seems, that the changes from 1.05 to 1.1 in point allocation just merely shift unit selection while not really improving anything in play balance or historicalness. Consider that, now a german player will use tons of mechs (if gun happy) and pumas at will while only 100 or so were ever made. How does this sound like impoved accuracy. To me having 1 King Tiger tank on the battlefield in a 1000 pt me does not sound historicaly inaccurate. But I guess BTS does.

Anyway, again, I do not see any problem with allied/axis armor differences.(ie my tabk should be better then yours type of argument. I think the modeling and the technical data is modeled fabulously. I have never cry wolf becouse I had lost a "superior" tank to an inferior one. (Though its hurts )

[Slapdragon]

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

Slappy: Personally, I think I have with my last post. I would like to see someone address my post. Would be interesting. Although I get this feeling that somebody will start flameing.

Anyway, my argument really cannot be proven, I dont see how it could. However that being said, it seems to be the only logical answer left, and I doubt BTS would admit it if I was right. I just do not see that much of a difference in play balance or historical accuracy from 1.05 to 1.1. The only thing left I can see (The only motive that I can see) is what I stated in my above post. Being that, the only motive I see left for wanting to change the point allocation for german armor is simple: too many people in CM like the germans. It really is that simple. You have said it yourself in so many words and I think we can all agree with that. I really do belive it was done to "tone down' the german armor lovers on this forum. (my two cents) And I really cannot prove this too you. It is the only motive left, after contemplaying the differnces in 1.05 to 1.1. Well we will see. Like I said, it seems, that the changes from 1.05 to 1.1 in point allocation just merely shift unit selection while not really improving anything in play balance or historicalness. Consider that, now a german player will use tons of mechs (if gun happy) and pumas at will while only 100 or so were ever made. How does this sound like impoved accuracy. To me having 1 King Tiger tank on the battlefield in a 1000 pt me does not sound historicaly inaccurate. But I guess BTS does.

Anyway, again, I do not see any problem with allied/axis armor differences.(ie my tabk should be better then yours type of argument. I think the modeling and the technical data is modeled fabulously. I have never cry wolf becouse I had lost a "superior" tank to an inferior one. (Though its hurts )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may very well be correct that this was the main reason why it was done. Not that BTS can control it, but on a few of the ladders it is very hard to find allied players -- better to go off the ladders and play people you know. This was the case with Squad Leader in convention and tourney play-- allies are less sexy than the Germans for many.

Really, the history and game fairness issues were repsonses to other peoplel who felt that the new change did not reflect history and did not make for equal game play. Most people originally said, "if you want more tanks for German, just play armour, who cares." While buying 8 Pumas everytime would defeat it, I personally have only had Pumas twice in games against Abbott.

However, I felt that people just saying it wasn't historical or did not lead to a balanced game and then expecting BTS to prove to them why it was balanced was silly. Sort of like you coming back from vacation, and getting accused of selling drugs to small children. You ask for proof, and the accuser says, "prove you did not sell it to children." To much of this silliness already goes on in society already.

One of the biggest problems has been that someone suggests it is not historical. A few of us come back with historical rationale, and then someone else says, "who said anything about historical, we don't think it is fair." But no one wanted to step up to the plate and quantify these problems.

However, I do agree with you that gamey combinations are still possible with the new settings. I suspect that the changes in tank numbers were done based on play testing with optimum force selections, but I could be wrong, but I do not think that tank limits are ahistorical. Your idea of getting more people to play allies does have merits, but I am not sure BTS was thinking about this when they made the changes.

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK gents, I took quite a bit of my Sunday night to address the issue that has spawned a couple of massive disccussions, including this one. You can find it here:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015334.html

Panther is mostly correct, but not exactly in the way he has outlined. The basic concept for the changes was to make the forces for each side more balanced from a historical standpoint. This has been acheived to the degree we can enforce such things at this time. We also made the changes to more fairly reflect the strengths and weaknesses of each side in terms of purchase choices. The detailed reasoning is in the thread linked to above. I'll take questions and answers there.

Slapdragon wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your idea of getting more people to play allies does have merits, but I am not sure BTS was thinking about this when they made the changes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. This thought never entered our mind, but if it is a side effect it is certainly a welcomed one.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-21-2001).]

[CavScout]

<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>

What unbalance? You have presumed some unbalance.

[Stefan Wennerberg]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

OK gents, I took quite a bit of my Sunday night to address the issue that has spawned a couple of massive disccussions, including this one. You can find it here:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015334.html

Panther is mostly correct, but not exactly in the way he has outlined. The basic concept for the changes was to make the forces for each side more balanced from a historical standpoint. This has been acheived to the degree we can enforce such things at this time. We also made the changes to more fairly reflect the strengths and weaknesses of each side in terms of purchase choices. The detailed reasoning is in the thread linked to above. I'll take questions and answers there.

Slapdragon wrote:

Correct. This thought never entered our mind, but if it is a side effect it is certainly a welcomed one.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-21-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve,

In CM2 will the players have their "rarity settings" created using parameters such as - battle date, Campaign, parent organization (e.g., division, corps) and/or Geographic Region?

What about QB maps, could we generate QB maps based on Geographic Region (e.g, Pryepit Marshes, Lennigrad, Northern Russia, area around Moscow, southern Russia)?

Stefan

[Henri]

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

  Okay, thanx, that's what I did but I was hoping there was an easier way I was unaware of. 

  Especially with all of my ASL gear boxed up and in storage (I've been moving and changing jobs) one convenient reference I've been using is the spiral bound "The HPS Simulations Encyclopedia of Land Combat", <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The link for ordering by email does not work

Henri

[Guest Big Time Software]

Stefan, in short... no to both of your questions. We felt it would be an impossible task to quantify choices like this, for all armies, over the course of the whole war in the East. Our system allows for variability, which should produce a similar result as you are asking about, but with far less effort. To see what I mean, try to do a search on the word "Rarity". It will pull up a bunch of threads, but there are at least 2 or 3 that discuss the feature in great detail.

Steve