This has gotta be fixed!

[Jumbo]

When playing a ME in a QB where the units are purchased, there is ALWAYS an unfair battfield-asset advantage for the German player -always. Especially in AFVs & vehicles. I especially noticed this while playing the German side. It soooo was REAL easy to win then.

Everyone take notice.

To alleviate this, we have to give the allied player 10-25% more points. If your opponent isn't a close friend or completely trustworthy, this then allows the allied player an opening to CHEAT & pick more units than what makes the game fair.

We then have to have the opponent's point total to be displayed to each player to know for sure if the game as even.

Of course, the REAL solution is to make the unit costs more fair & raise the cost of the German units -for gameplay's sake.

I bet players who only play the German side will disagree with this.

CMBO is a game afterall, isn't it? Why then, isn't it a fair game?

Happy New Millenium to all!

Jumbo

[Tiger]

ummm...yeah whatever. Someone's started their New Year's Eve drinking binge already

john

[dNorwood]

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

Someone's started their New Year's Eve drinking binge already

john<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah. I remember my first beer...

[Jumbo]

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

Yeah. I remember my first beer...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above two posts insinuate that I'm either an alcoholic or I'm a teenager. I can assure all that I'm neither. I've been wargaming for more than aquarter of a century.

Hey Tiger and dNorwood, are either of you guys a CM player that only will play if he gets the Germans?

[dog6880]

jumbo i agree i get lots of nasty replys from lots of nasty people.

i dont know what you are saying because i am new to this game but any imbalance in any game is unfair and ruins the game, and should be fixed. Thats why no one wants to play a senario where we invade gold or sword beaches, or one where the germans smash the polish or french. what would the point be? so if there is an unbalance it needs to be fixed.

if people grumble and the game desiners dont do it because of that then everythign the company has said about quality war games witht a twist of reality is bust. cant have quality games that are unequal.

[Guest Germanboy]

Funny - now why don't you just go and count the results at the RD ladder or any other ladder and come back here telling us how much more often the German players win? Oh sorry, I don't believe you have a case, so I must be one of those only playing the Germans, eh?

Choosing the Germans is no help for people who lack the skills for decent play. When losing against the Germans it is of course a lot easier to blame it on the 'unfairness' of the game, rather than your own tactical ineptness.

Have a nice day.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[dNorwood]

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

The above two posts insinuate that I'm either an alcoholic or I'm a teenager. I can assure all that I'm neither. I've been wargaming for more than aquarter of a century.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both were lighthearted and judgemental attempts to communicate that your post came on VERY strongly (in fact, it was too strong and judgemental to be taken seriously).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Hey Tiger and dNorwood, are either of you guys a CM player that only will play if he gets the Germans?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't answer your question as asked - but =I= prefer to play Allies (preferably American) for no good reason. And I lose with regularity - but in my case it's because I'm a bad player not because of the inherent disadvantage the Allies are obviously heir to. (Excuse me, to which the allies are heir to).

[GI Tom]

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

When playing a ME in a QB where the units are purchased, there is ALWAYS an unfair battfield-asset advantage for the German player -always. Especially in AFVs & vehicles. I especially noticed this while playing the German side. It soooo was REAL easy to win then.

Everyone take notice.

To alleviate this, we have to give the allied player 10-25% more points. If your opponent isn't a close friend or completely trustworthy, this then allows the allied player an opening to CHEAT & pick more units than what makes the game fair.

We then have to have the opponent's point total to be displayed to each player to know for sure if the game as even.

Of course, the REAL solution is to make the unit costs more fair & raise the cost of the German units -for gameplay's sake.

I bet players who only play the German side will disagree with this.

CMBO is a game afterall, isn't it? Why then, isn't it a fair game?

Happy New Millenium to all!

Jumbo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jumbo, your post makes absolutely NO sense.

Let's dissect it. Please explain your entire first paragraph to me. How is there ALWAYS an unfair advantage for the Germans? Is it due to your perception of the quality of the German equipment, or your lack of knowledge on how to use Allied equipment?

In your second paragraph you say we HAVE to give the Allied player 10-25% point advantage. That is incorrect, Meeting Engagements can be setup for exactly the same amount of points to be distributed to both sides. If one side has more points, the game will notify you of this. (Unless you set it up that way.)

In your third paragraph you state what a REAL solution would be in your opinion. Well, I would suggest you do a search on unit cost and you will find volumes of information to read on this board.

I love the comment about "only players who play the German side will disagree with this". That's a beauty right there. I've played the Allies in PBEM's more times than the amount of days you've been inhabiting this board according to your profile. I've won plenty as the Allies in an even meeting engagement. I've lost plenty too.

And finally, your last about why isn't it fair. It is very fair. You just need to brush up on your combined arms tactics and learn to use the equipment you have on the field.

Have a Happy Millenium!

Gi Tom

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

To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich.

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...i agree i get lots of nasty replys from lots of nasty people<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one was being nasty, notice the smiley face. Jumbo is looking for someone to fight with, hence his main topic and then his subsequent reply. Obviously he did not get sufficient response/attention yesterday when he posted a similiar topic, so now he's trying to turn up the heat and basically call people who like to play the Axis cheaters.

Jumbo I think BTS knows a little something about their design and if it needs "fixing" they will. If the Axis have this large advantage over the Allies then it probably would have been fixed by now knowing BTS. That said, I've been beaten plenty of times in quick battles by Allied AI and Allied players. Stop looking for excuses as to why you lose as the Allies and improve your tactics instead.

john

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GI Tom:

Is it due to your perception of the quality of the German equipment, or your lack of knowledge on how to use Allied equipment?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OWNED!

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

---------

No bastard has ever won a war by dying for his country. They won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

[Jumbo]

Ok, point taken.

But it still stands true that with an even number of points for both sides, the German player ends up with MORE battlefield assets than the Americans. It doesn't matter how "good" a player you are. I guess that someone with all KTs in an all armor battle could lose.

If both players are even in skill, the player with the greater number of battlefield assets usually will win. Anyone ever hear that the one with last tank, squad,or bullet wins? To me the strength of CM should be evident in a contest between players of equal skill. Not the opposite.

Create a German force with all the teams of a good combined arms force. (infantry, artillery, tanks, FBs, etc....) Notice the cost. Next create an equal American force. (Same numbers of infantry, tanks, etc...)Then COMPARE the costs and you'll see a wide disparity. A 4,000+ German force costs the American player more than 6,000 points! Not so much for the British player though.

What I'm talking about isn't crazy or fanciful. Its real and it isn't right. It should be fixed IMHO. Thank you for listening.

Jumbo

[Jumbo]

To give the Americans 10-25% more, you have to set the scenario limit (say 2000pts) and the axis player can only use (say 1500 pts), so the American player can even the playing field, so to speak.

It is numbers, not the unit quality.

Take two players even in skill with forces of equal quality and I will bet that the German player will win because his unit costs are less -and hence will have more units. Who will be left owning the battlefield with EVERYTHING being equal? A force of eight tanks or the force with only six tanks? He had eight because they COST LESS.

I am not trying to pick a fight. If anything, I've been a helpful member of this board since my entrance in it. I'm just trying to point out something that isn't readily apparent and yet it has profound affects on the gameplay.

Jumbo

[Jarmo]

I don't believe there's a problem.

But anyway, I went and checked the results from the Rugged defense

tournament, round 2.

It's a tournament where every player plays the same meeting setup from

both sides. With different purchases, of course.

54 total games, 29 german victories. One undecided. 24 allied victories.

While that's noe exactly even, there certainly is no strong tendency

for the german side to win.

[Guest Michael emrys]

I'm not trying to pick a fight either, Jumbo, but I have a few unanswered questions in my mind. Have you actually compared the point cost of German and Allied units of equivalent capability and experience? Keep in mind that most German infantry squads have only nine men whereas American squads come with twelve men, for instance.

I've noticed another thing the AI does when buying units is to sometimes go for quantity over quality (experience). This may have effected the games you have observed.

When BTS designed the game, they rated the unints based on their estimate of how much they were really worth on the battlefield. Notice the use of the word 'estimate' in that sentence. Others might look at the same data and draw different conclusions, or have other, equally good or better data. If you have a case that you can support, by all means present it. BTS has shown many times over the years that they will heed and respond. Just be prepared for a vigorous rebuttal.

Michael

[Bigdog]

What game are you playing Jumbo? 4000=6000 You should play using Fionn Kelly's Short 75 or Panther 76 rule. If you check out how infantry points are you will see that a company of US comes with Zooks & Motors, while as German's don't, you have to purchase your support separately and a German squad has 9 men & a US has 12. Its not that big of a difference. Now I play as Axis mostly and I have lost and I have won. It has more to with tactics than the points, I make some bad moves I lose. My opponent makes some bad moves he loses. Work on tactics, that's what wins games.

Big Dog

[Jumbo]

Thanks Jarmo,

Of course the point that I'm trying so hard to make is between players of an EQUAL skill level.

The NUMBER of battlefield assets always comes out in favor of the Germans because of their low cost. Its where things start out, that I'm concerned with.

I cannot speak for the quality of skill regarding the tournament's participents and yet I'm sure that there are participants there with a very high level of skill. Congratulations to all of them.

Jumbo

[GI Tom]

Your perception is incorrect. You cite zero examples, zero tests, zero anything. You say that the German can buy eight tanks and the Allies can only buy six. Well, eight of what and six of what?? Your post still makes no sense. It sounds as almost if you got wasted as the Allies in a game or two and your perceptions are inaccurate.

As a matter of fact, I believe your all wrong. Firstly, the unit Quality AFFECTS the cost of each unit, which will determine what you can put on the field. If your playing the Germans as nothing but Green or Conscript, yes, you'll be able to purchase more than the Allied player if they have Regular or Veteran troops. And then, that only depends on WHAT you purchase. Your assuming that any tank for the Germs is equivalent value for the Allies, and vice versa. That is woefully incorrect. Each asset has a value that when used PROPERLY, is well worth more than anything you can buy. The value is based on the CAPABILITIES of each unit, and what it can do. You just have to learn what those capabilities are and how to use them.

Do a test man, you'll see that as Regular troops for German Heer forces versus American forces, both values set at Regular quality, I can buy more as the American than as the German. Here's a test I just did. A 3000 Meeting Engagement. Force Quality Regular. All Armor. I could buy 17 Tiger Tanks versus 24 M4A3 Sherman Tanks. Your telling me with that I'll ALWAYS win because I have 24 Sherms vs 17 Tigers?? Grr, boy, you've got some learnin' to do!

I still don't understand your definition of battlefield assets. To me, anything on the field is an asset. According to you, the more assets you have, regardless of type, with play skill being equal, the one with more assets will win. That is just incorrect.

GI Tom

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

To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich.

[JoePrivate]

Jumbo, I really think you are talking nonsense and sour grapes here. Anyone you disagrees with your assertions only plays the Germans? That is just plain pathetic.

You do realize that BTS has tweaked the categories restricting how much the German side can spend? ie, in a 1500 point ME the German is only allowed 300pts on armour while the US has 450 pts to spend. Anyways I followed your suggestion for a 1500pt ME with the following results:

German

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

1 SS Rifle Company(2 HMGs)

1 Panzershreck

1 120mm FO

1 81mm FO

1 234/1 AC

1 Stug

1 PantherA

US

1 Rifle44 Company(3Bazookas/3MGs/3Mortars)

3 Rifle44 Platoons

1 4.5" FO

1 81mm FO

1 JeepMG

1 M4A3

2 M18 Hellcats

Now, this looks pretty even to me(I just picked them off the cuff) and I would have no problem playing and winning as the US with this force. I can't see 'what isn't right' here at all except a perception problem on your part.

Cheers.

[Jarmo]

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

Of course the point that I'm trying so hard to make is between players of an EQUAL skill level.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why I used that example.

EVERYONE plays both sides. That pretty much ensures there's

exactly the same total amount of skill on both sides.

BTW, that number of units way of thinking is just plain weird.

[This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 12-31-2000).]

[Sgt Schulz]

Sorry but I can't help but post on this matter. I do a lot more reading then posting but I feel I know a bit about this subject. This situation reared it's ugly head in an all too similar Modification to Atomics Close Combat 3. When a very knowledgable group of individuals got together and reworked almost the entire game and came up with the Western Front Mod. I know what you are saying...."This isn't Close Combat...." I completely agree but the simularities are still there. These individuals, much like BTS went through painstaking hours of work to turn a game based on the Russian-German aspects of WWII, into a game containing vast amounts of information and a quality (money worthy) product that was free to anyone. Well anyway one of the problems was that German armor vastly superior, (armor thickness, gun size) the costs did not corespond to this, giving anyone playing the krauts a distinct advantage. I do understand that everything does come down to player ability, I wholeheartedly agree on this fact, 5 years of playing CC2 and CC3 online has taught me nothing but humility. But, on that note I must also agree with Jumbo on that fact that if you are given the same points down the line, (points representing availibility of equipment, and or supply) you have to admit aquiring 6 Mark IV's to what?...a couple few sherman 76's(representing gun power equality)or so in CM. This very same problem occured in West Front Mod of CC3 and had to be corrected multiple times. Both games are far and away the best in there respective areas Close Combat being Real Time and all. I have nothing but good things to say about Combat Mission, believe me it took nothing short of perfection to pull me away from CC3, so I say keep up the excellent work BTS!!

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

"D-Day was a nightmare. Even now it brings pain to recall what happened there on June 6, 1944. I have returned many times to honorthe valiant men who died on that beach. They should never be forgotten. Nor should those who lived to carry the day by the slimmest of margins. Every man who set foot on Omaha Beach that day was a hero."

General Omar Bradley-

[Moon]

Hm... I "think" what Jumbo really means is that the Germans have more variety in their "vehicle" forcepool than the US. The German player can choose several lightly armored vehicles with "big guns", whereas the US player has little beside the Greyhound in his "vehicles" slot that has more than some machineguns.

This is a "problem" which I have mentioned already during testing a couple of times, but it's tough to make a strong case for a change, since so much depends on opinions and there is little hard facts.

However, I do still think that things would be evened out a little by moving some units which are currently in the Armor slot to the Vehicles slot. M7 Priests, for example, as well as the M8 HMC's and some others. This would nicely balance the availabe unit options between Germans and US in my opinion AND at the same time allow "mechanized" units to be more comparable to the US Cavalry TO&Es.

Just some thoughts...

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

"An hour has 60 minutes, each minute in action has a thousand dangers."

- Karl-Heinz Gauch, CO 1st Panzerspähkompanie, 12th SS Panzerdivision

[Jumbo]

GI Tom,

Boy? Personal attacks about age are better left out of this forum.

A battlefield asset is anything on a battlefield that can be used to reduce the enemy. If you have the numbers, quality of the "equipment" is not as big a concern -when the quality of the troops are the same.

Here is a test:

Create a German force with ALL the teams of a good combined arms force. (infantry, artillery, tanks, FBs, etc....) Notice the cost. Next create an equal American force. (Same numbers of infantry, tanks, etc...)Then COMPARE the costs and you'll see a wide disparity. A 4,000+ German force costs the American player more than 6,000 points! Not so much for the British player though.

It may not be that the German costs need to go up. It may be that the American cocts may need to come down. I understand that combat effectiveness in CM is important in considering the unit's cost. The combat effectiveness of the Sherman was only high because of it's numbers and not because of it's inherent quality as a medium tank in battle. Both sides didn't call them ronsons for nothing.

So here we have a catch-22. The Sherman's combat effectiveness is high, mainly because of their numbers and hence they are given a relatively high cost and yet you cannot have a high number of them because of their high cost in CM. It is totally non-historical.

Jumbo

[Gremlin]

Why the emphasis on the number of units or troops? Sheer numbers don't in any way guarantee a victory. Comparing German and Allied tanks as if they were interchangeable makes little sense historically or in CM.

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

War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman

[Triumvir]

That you're saying that a Sherman has low combat effectiveness signals to me that you're not using them properly. Shermans are infantry killers and should be used as such. If you put them up against tanks, they'll die in short order.

A lot of the problems you seem to be running into can (and I hate to sound like David Aitken) be resolved by using actual doctrine. Put tank destroyers against tanks and tanks against infantry.

Why don't you post your definition of a combined arms team (which, by the way, if it takes 4000/6000pts to build is rather big by CM standards) for both Germans and Americans? Saying that it's "got all the elements" doesn't quite cut it.

Oh, and BTW, I'm not American and even I know that using "boy" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with age.

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So here we have a catch-22. The Sherman's combat effectiveness is high, mainly because of their numbers and hence they are given a relatively high cost and yet you cannot have a high number of them because of their high cost in CM. It is totally non-historical.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You started off by saying the game should be made more fair for all by increasing the cost of Axis units. Now you think that you should be able to have more tanks and units than the Axis, regardless of unit performance simply because you're playing Allied. Your original points have been refuted with examples. Units... infantry, armor or otherwise, are not equal in performance nor cost (their cost reflects this) so you can not do a straight Allied -- Axis numbers, as someone has already pointed out. You're playing a shell game but people already know what shell the ball is under.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, I do still think that things would be evened out a little by moving some units which are currently in the Armor slot to the Vehicles slot. M7 Priests, for example, as well as the M8 HMC's and some others. This would nicely balance the availabe unit options between Germans and US in my opinion AND at the same time allow "mechanized" units to be more comparable to the US Cavalry TO&Es.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yeah! Put the Hummel and Wespe in the vehicle category as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>you have to admit aquiring 6 Mark IV's to what?...a couple few sherman 76's(representing gun power equality)or so in CM<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when do Sherman 76's equal Panzer IVs in gun quality. I do not think you have played much CMBO to believe this. Panzer IVs can and do get taken out by greyhounds and other Allied ACs.

German tanks are at a disadvantage against the Allied armor because of slow turrent rotation alone, not counting the increased HVAP use by the Allies in the last patch(es).

john