Unrestricted QB Unit Choices

[North Star]

Now that BTS has granted the much requested "unrestricted" option on quick battles, I wonder what the impact has been. In PBEM, are your opponents changing their unit selections from what you used to see in Combined Arms QB's?

Myself, I have started three of these games recently. The impact seems to be more spending on armor, especially for the Axis. In day / dawn battles, moderate forest, I am seeing armor points of from 25% - 35% of the total force. Also, despite complaints of "uber-halftracks" I have never had a PBEM opponent purchase an allied or axis track.

Your experiences?

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

"Act after having made assessments. The one who first knows the measures of far and near wins - this the rule of armed struggle." Sun Tzu - The Art of War

[jshandorf]

Interesting...

I find HTs very useful. Of coarse you have to use them in the role they were designed for, that is, infantry support.

Also, HTs don't survive very long without decent tank support.

I find that in all my games regardless of how I have to spend my points I always purchase a good number of HTs.

You put 4 HTs together about 150+ meters from an enemy that has no AT support other than bazookas and they will learnt to respect the HT in that regard.

jeff

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

When nuclear weapons are frozen then only freezers will have nuclear weapons.

[North Star]

Good point, Jeff. I guess that players do not want to risk losing armor superiority by investing a lot of points in half-tracks. I often purchase American half-tracks, and while they can be great units, they seem almost worthless if your opponent has a viable anti-tank force still intact.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

HTs are vastly overpriced. Your 4 HTs standing off cost almost as much as 100 rounds of 105mm to drop on their heads, or 2 Shermans or Pz IVs with about as many MGs and 100-150 rounds of 75mm HE to boot. The only thing one gets in return is transport for 4 squads (and the tanks give transport for 2). And that transport is not exactly safe. HMGs will not take out tanks, but I've seen them KO halftracks.

HTs should cost about as much as infantry squads, or a little less, so that halftrack mounted infantry costs twice as much as foot guys. That means more like 30-35 points apiece, not 45-50.

Soft-skin transport, incidentally, should be even cheaper. Nobody buys trucks these days, but if they were ~15 points people might buy them to carry heavy weapons and such. The firepower and armor portions of nearly everything in the "vehicle" screen are underweighted, and the cost of transport ability overweighted, in my opinion.

[John Kelly]

I for one believe this is the setting of choice for Quick Battles from the German perspective. It adds another diminsion to the fog of war and eliminates artificial boundaries imposed by the program. I believe anyone who deviates from a sound combined arms strategy will lose more than he wins. However, there are times when purchasing a vehicle might cause you to go over the limit by a couple of points if using a "combined arms" setting. Unrestricted solves that little problem nicely. It will not drastically change my force selection, but the additional fog of war is welcomed. John

[North Star]

Jason - absolutely agree with you that HT's are overpriced. The free market has spoken here and it seems like the CM players think (by their actions) that these units do not are not as effective as their cost. Wish they were cheaper - would love to use them more.

John - as with you, while I have seen a tendency toward more armor using unrestricted selection, I have not seen a move toward unbalanced forces. CM remains a combined arms game. Infantry is still the key to winning the battle. But it is not much fun when you run out of armor before your opponent does, and watch your veteran company get pummeled by stand off tank shelling. So I purchase tanks.

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

HTs are vastly overpriced. Your 4 HTs standing off cost almost as much as 100 rounds of 105mm to drop on their heads, or 2 Shermans or Pz IVs with about as many MGs and 100-150 rounds of 75mm HE to boot. The only thing one gets in return is transport for 4 squads (and the tanks give transport for 2). And that transport is not exactly safe. HMGs will not take out tanks, but I've seen them KO halftracks.

HTs should cost about as much as infantry squads, or a little less, so that halftrack mounted infantry costs twice as much as foot guys. That means more like 30-35 points apiece, not 45-50.

Soft-skin transport, incidentally, should be even cheaper. Nobody buys trucks these days, but if they were ~15 points people might buy them to carry heavy weapons and such. The firepower and armor portions of nearly everything in the "vehicle" screen are underweighted, and the cost of transport ability overweighted, in my opinion.

Good points, Jason.

Jeff

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

When nuclear weapons are frozen then only freezers will have nuclear weapons.

[John Kettler]

I tried Unrestricted setting twice yesterday on QBs where computer picks the actual forces after initial inputs. Both times I got forces

suited for probes but emphatically not suited to conduct attacks or assaults. One force had nothing larger than a 60mm mortar by way of fire support.

Chastened by this, I selected German mechanized defending vs. Allied CA assaulting, with nearly everything else randomized. Kingfish and I are now fighting in dense fog. It should be wild.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Olle Petersson]

My personal change has been to use what I feel is more historically appropriate forces.

I've never quite liked the Combined Arms option, as it's more suited for a force that's infantry heavy with some minor armoured support.

The Armored option, on the other hand, is useful but can be a bit cheap on infantry and artillery.

As for point distribution in general; One infantry company costs about the same as one tank/StuG platoon, and I think that one of each makes a good balance.

Cheers

Olle