Some unbalanced armor costs

[BlackVoid]

There are a few things in point costs that I think cause imbalance in the game.

1. I'll start with my biggest problem:

Churchill VII-VIII

These things have 150mm armor and can only be taken out by the long 75 and long 88 mm guns beyond 100m. This means only a few german tanks are capable of killing it.

All are more expensive than the Churchill.

The Tiger I which is more expensive, cannot take out this beast, neither can the german At guns. The german player does not have good enough mobile assets to attack the Churchill from the flank. Especially because the Churchill's turret is faster than any german tank's or armored car's.

I think the cost for the Churchill should be raised.

2. Tiger

Historically the Tiger was a great tank even in 44-45. Villers-Bocage anyone?

In CM it suffers. 76 mm guns and 17 pounders usually take it out on the first shot that hits. In the relatively short ranges of CM the Tiger is not worth buying as it is really not much better than a regular PzIV.

It's high cost means that in an average QB the axis player can only buy 1. I think 1 tank is no tank.

Suggestion: lower the cost of the Tiger, so in a regular battle around 1000pts, the axis player can buy 2 of them. 140 pts for a regular?

3. Sherman

Unless playing by special rules, the normal 75mm Sherman is not worth it. No wonder I have not seen any in the 40+ quick battles I played. It is really a lot worse than an M10 or a Hellcat. It's a better at infantry support, but much worse against armor.

Suggestion: the normal Sherman's cost should be lowered to around 100pts for a regular.

4. Hetzer

These things are ridiculously cheap. Their armor is better than a Tiger's and their gun is only a little worse. They suck as infantry support but they are very good against armor. Unless the opposition has Churchills.

Suggestion: After the point distribution is restored to normal - and only then -, the Hetzer's cost should be raised a little.

5. Panther

This is really the best tank the german player has. Too bad that in most battles the german player can buy only one. As I said before one tank is no tank. For a lower cost the allied player can buy two Hellcats. If used correctly the Panther does not have a chance against them.

Suggestion: Lower the price of the Panther so at least the axis player can buy a Panther and a PzIV for 300 pts.

Of course to change all this would require more thought, this is just my opinion about some of the armor that is in the game. My 1st point I think is the most valid one. Playing Churchills as allied I always won so far and playing against Churchills I always lost. They are a very big unbalancing factor.

I wonder what you think about it?

[tailz]

Oh Gawd, will these threads NEVER end!! Matt, Steve, Kwazy, Charles... please create another forum for this stuff.... please...

[HEDU/JG26]

Blackvoid, I think there is some more figuring for you to do. If you were to strictly play games where its a flat field and all armor, maybe you have a point. But I think the histircal value of these and more vehicles is not figured into your thinking. Your making assumtions that certain tanks are Ubertanks, which is not correct. I'll para phrase from you myself.

"If used correctly.."

Thats the thing. Used correctly, you can stop a Churchill, a Panzer, anything. You don't just quit a scenario because one side has a Tiger or a Pershing. The art is being in total command of a "force", not just a tank. Learn the "art of war", and you'll see the true strength of a force is how they are used and applied, not just who has the biggest tank.

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

John "Hedu" Babarovich,

Jagdeschwader 26, Warbirds

[Panther131]

Actually in a sense I agree with you. I dont have the time or energy to make a long post about it but in general what you have said is true.

Especially for those 1000 point battles. (a typical QB allotment)

[Guest Pillar]

Try playing some bigger engagements too. If all you can ever afford is 1 Panther, it tells me you aren't ever playing anything much beyong sub-1000 pointers.

Try 2000 Point Attack for starters, then move up to 3000, 4000.... Much more fun and complex.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Regarding the Sherman 75, it was intended as an infantry support weapon, not an anti-tank weapon.

[Panther131]

Yes, but I believe that BTS designed CM for 2000 point battles. Only when the cry went out for larger point battles was it added.

Nonetheless, I am still learning the ways of being a great commander, so I do not want to over confuse myself with large point battles. I will make my way up to this however.

With 1.05, in ca me, I could afford a panther for tank support and a wespe or a hummel for infantry support. Now, in 1.1 you can only buy 1 panther and no other support vehicles in "armor'. Of course there are halftracks to use for infantry, but that is another matter.

[Guest Napoleon1944]

I agree with BV. The armor pointvalues need some tweaking unless BTS models the armor more realistically then the ratios would reflect a level playing field. I don't think BTS designed this as a 2 player game. When 2 people fight, and a human loses, expect harsh criticism. All this nonsense is casting a dark shadow on this game.

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

The only enemy I fear is nature.

-Napoleon

[photon]

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

Churchill VII-VIII

These things have 150mm armor and can only be taken out by the long 75 and long 88 mm guns beyond 100m.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You neglect the following german units that can kill the Chruchill VII and VIII:

Heer:

Rifle 44 Squad

Rifle 45 Squad

Volksgrenadier SMG Squad

Volksgrenadier Rifle Squad

Pioneer Squad (!)

Sicherung Squad

Sturmgruppe Squad

Panzergrenadier Squad

Motorized Squad

Panzergrenadier Pioneer Squad

Motorized Pioneer Squad

Escort Squad

Platoon Headquarters

Company Headquarters

Battallion Headquarters

Panzerschreck Team

Flamethrower Team

150mm Infantry Gun

88mm Pak AT Gun

88mm Flak AT Gun

Antitank Mines

This is an abbreviated list of course. There are many many more units that can kill the Churchill. Not to mention that the short 75 it packs can almost penetrate a bag of doritos. Almost.

The point of that is that pretty much any unit can kill just about any other unit (especially infantry). That dosen't mean it's easy to do, but that's where skill and luck weigh in. Combat Mission isn't about facing off one tank against another, it's about fighting a good effective combined arms battle!

- Photon

[Slapdragon]

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

There are a few things in point costs that I think cause imbalance in the game.

1. I'll start with my biggest problem:

Churchill VII-VIII

These things have 150mm armor and can only be taken out by the long 75 and long 88 mm guns beyond 100m. This means only a few german tanks are capable of killing it.

All are more expensive than the Churchill.

The Tiger I which is more expensive, cannot take out this beast, neither can the german At guns. The german player does not have good enough mobile assets to attack the Churchill from the flank. Especially because the Churchill's turret is faster than any german tank's or armored car's.

I think the cost for the Churchill should be raised.

2. Tiger

Historically the Tiger was a great tank even in 44-45. Villers-Bocage anyone?

In CM it suffers. 76 mm guns and 17 pounders usually take it out on the first shot that hits. In the relatively short ranges of CM the Tiger is not worth buying as it is really not much better than a regular PzIV.

It's high cost means that in an average QB the axis player can only buy 1. I think 1 tank is no tank.

Suggestion: lower the cost of the Tiger, so in a regular battle around 1000pts, the axis player can buy 2 of them. 140 pts for a regular?

3. Sherman

Unless playing by special rules, the normal 75mm Sherman is not worth it. No wonder I have not seen any in the 40+ quick battles I played. It is really a lot worse than an M10 or a Hellcat. It's a better at infantry support, but much worse against armor.

Suggestion: the normal Sherman's cost should be lowered to around 100pts for a regular.

4. Hetzer

These things are ridiculously cheap. Their armor is better than a Tiger's and their gun is only a little worse. They suck as infantry support but they are very good against armor. Unless the opposition has Churchills.

Suggestion: After the point distribution is restored to normal - and only then -, the Hetzer's cost should be raised a little.

5. Panther

This is really the best tank the german player has. Too bad that in most battles the german player can buy only one. As I said before one tank is no tank. For a lower cost the allied player can buy two Hellcats. If used correctly the Panther does not have a chance against them.

Suggestion: Lower the price of the Panther so at least the axis player can buy a Panther and a PzIV for 300 pts.

Of course to change all this would require more thought, this is just my opinion about some of the armor that is in the game. My 1st point I think is the most valid one. Playing Churchills as allied I always won so far and playing against Churchills I always lost. They are a very big unbalancing factor.

I wonder what you think about it?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The biggest problem with all this is that it is peicemeal. Lower this and raise this. It is also based almost solely on a tanks antitank capability and ignores it cross country, turret, and other factors. So, from the point of view of changing anything none of this will work.

Forexample, lowering the Sherman 75 means you bump it into M5 and M24. The Sherman basic, say an M4A3, has lots of ammo, 3 mgs, a 75mm gun, and good cross country. While an M5 is not a bad unit, it is not as good as an M4A3, so you have to lower it.

Lower the M5 and you have to lower the Priest and M8. Lower the M8 and priest and you have to reexamine everything else.

To make this work, you need some sort of mathematical system that can be used on any unit in the game to determine its cost based on effectiveness. Here is an abstract one:

Firepower rating (F) + Cross country © + Defence rating (D) + special quality (S)

F is figured based on # of mm penetrated at 50 (f sub 1),100 (f sub 2), and 500 meters (f sub 3) / 450 * hit probability * he blast * ammo carried and so on.

The idea is to really fix the BTS system, if it is wrong at all, you need to build a better mouse trap that takes all the variables into account. The problem with your tweeking is that it looks to be based on a tanks ability to fight another tank, and is based on the assumption that a player will always fight tank versus tank in combines arms fights (when other combinations are possible), and that the fight will be small battle. Your system instead needs to think about all of the 32 different combinations of quick battles (attack, defense, armour, mechanized, infantry, combines arms all in a matrix).

Then, if an imbalance is found, it wont be a case of tweeking one tank, but of tweeking a variable. Maybe you do not weigh the amount of ammunition enough, so you mess with its multiplyer. Or maybe the extra MG on a Sherman is not often used so it got to much mention, so you tweek the AAMG variable a bit, cutting it in half, and thuse changing the value of all vehicles using AAMGs at the same time.

[WolfLord]

Guess what my idea is...put QB CA MEs armor points back the way they were. Heh, I can imagine that if this was done all the people who are advocating the 1.1 change by saying that there really is no difference, would bleat and moan till their eyes pop.

[chrisl]

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

The point of that is that pretty much any unit can kill just about any other unit (especially infantry). That dosen't mean it's easy to do, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. Let me give some examples of kills that I've scored that you probably wouldn't expect:

a Sherman Jumbo killed by a PSW234/3

Misc Cromwells by the 234/3 (notice a trend?)

two Panthers by a single Stuart (really!)

Lots of Panthers killed by Sherman 75s and 76s

More that I'm sure I'm forgetting.

I think the only thing that's ever made me worry was a JagdTiger in the hands of Meeks.

I recently played a 3000 pointer in which the only vehicles I bought were a pair of stuarts and a pair of M8 HMCs. IIRC I bought a straight infantry battalion minus a platoon and some of the support weapons (a mix of vets and regulars), plus 2 81 mm FOs, a 105 mm FO, and a 14" FO. We set it up by sending purchase instructions to a third party to populate the map. My opponent had a good combined arms/slightly mechanized force including a few Panthers, a few Hetzers, a few StuGs, some HTs, and a bunch of grunts. The game was a draw after a pretty bloody fight. The 14" arty killed a lot of infantry (maybe 60 of his and 10 of mine), and immobilized one hetzer, but didn't destroy any tanks. The rest of the tanks were killed or damaged by infantry or arty (of reasonable sizes). Except for the 14" stuff, the arty wasn't particularly excessive for a US force this size (also came with two or three platoons of on map 60 mm mortars, which can do an awesome job of controlling/directing/suppressing enemy troops). The big stuff is pretty hard to use, because you don't get a lot of shells, a single spotting round is often enough to wax the target plus some friendlies, and it takes forever for the stuff to show up, especially with a green FO). I think had I bought armor instead of the 14", the result would have been pretty much the same.

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

"If you can taste the difference between caviar on a cracker and ketchup on a Kit-Kat while blindfolded, you have not had enough aquavit to be ready for lutefisk." (stolen from some web page about lutefisk)

[Panther131]

Posted by Wolflord: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Guess what my idea is...put QB CA MEs armor points back the way they were. Heh, I can imagine that if this was done all the people who are advocating the 1.1 change by saying that there really is no difference, would bleat and moan till their eyes pop.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should check my post on why BTS possibly changed the armor points allocation. It is really just my assumption at this point. But I do believe I am right. Until soemone can prove me wrong on this, this is what I will believe. I am not an poster of the "my tiger should be better then it is" type posts, but I am one that has thought long and hard about the change in point allocation in ca me's.

Its in the points allocation redux by philisitine

Quite honestly though, I believe I am right, and that BTS hasnt yet even posted one comment on the whole issue, only proves to me that something is a bit fishy.

Check it out, I really think it's quite interesting.

But hey, I'll probably get flamed for this.

[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-21-2001).]

[Polar]

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

Guess what my idea is...put QB CA MEs armor points back the way they were. Heh, I can imagine that if this was done all the people who are advocating the 1.1 change by saying that there really is no difference, would bleat and moan till their eyes pop.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correction, those that bitch and moan about this change would just move on to the next thing to bitch and moan about if it got reversed.

Many of the people rallying to have this reversed were full of bitchin' and moanin' before 1.1 came out.

Look at the original post on this thread... some already have complaints waiting in the wings.

Joe

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

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

[WolfLord]

Panther, I just read that post. Your reasoning is sound and that may be the reason (at least partially) for the change. If this is indeed the case, it would be most...how shall I say it...unsatisfying.

[Slapdragon]

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

Guess what my idea is...put QB CA MEs armor points back the way they were. Heh, I can imagine that if this was done all the people who are advocating the 1.1 change by saying that there really is no difference, would bleat and moan till their eyes pop.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Wolflord, you should go back and read all the previous posts as to why the change was made, from BTS and others. You have two choices as is to work it out: play armour or play 1500 points. There is historical and game balance reaons why it is a good idea, and no one has provided any good solid evidence that it is unbalanced.

I do agree though that many of the people complaining about the 1.1 change would "bleat and moan until their eyes popped out" about the next thing." I should repost the BTS comment here that discusses this bleating my the people who prefer to play Germans:

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

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. This has been true since the first Beta Demo, well over one year ago. No facts, no figures, not quantifiable tests to prove their case. Just "I lost my King Tiger, and I shouldn't have because it is a King Tiger".

Folks... all things being equal if you use bad tactics you will most likely lose against the AI or a decent player. It doesn't matter if you have King Tigers or Sherman 75s, although you can generally make more mistakes with a KT than a Sherman. Using vehicles to their best abilities is the key to victory.

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. But be forewarned, if the "compelling case" is "I parked my KT on an exposed hill 300m away from 5 Shermans, and lost" there will be no changes made to the system

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As to point values, notice BlackVoid that BTS would listen if you had a compelling case built on a bit of research and some thinking through the point systems. Otherwise screwing with the points wont get very far.

[Polar]

Panther,

Problem is that your assumption that BTS-doesn't-respond=your-assumption-is-right is the same thing the UFO kooks use to prove they are right about aliens anal probing cows.

They saw an imbalance in not in game outcome, but in the number of points being thrown at ubertanks etc. by German players since they (for the most part) new there was a ATHT in the vehicles section that could handle most Allied armor as well as a PzIV anyway (both are one shot kills, for the most part). So what you wound up with in too many battles (I saw this playing the Allies all the time) is a mess of ATHTs and one KT.

BTS mentioned this (and their reasoning) long before 1.1 came out, and mentioned the expected moans coming from the German players. MAybe looking back at pre-1.1 reports will turn this up.... I remember them mentioning this long ago.

Of course... there was crying about the fact that there was a difference in the first place back before 1.1....

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 Polar:

Panther,

Problem is that your assumption that BTS-doesn't-respond=your-assumption-is-right is the same thing the UFO kooks use to prove they are right about aliens anal probing cows.

They saw an imbalance in not in game outcome, but in the number of points being thrown at ubertanks etc. by German players since they (for the most part) new there was a ATHT in the vehicles section that could handle most Allied armor as well as a PzIV anyway (both are one shot kills, for the most part). So what you wound up with in too many battles (I saw this playing the Allies all the time) is a mess of ATHTs and one KT.

BTS mentioned this (and their reasoning) long before 1.1 came out, and mentioned the expected moans coming from the German players. MAybe looking back at pre-1.1 reports will turn this up.... I remember them mentioning this long ago.

Of course... there was crying about the fact that there was a difference in the first place back before 1.1....

Joe

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Prove to me an alien didn't anal probe my cow. Hell, it took me three days just to wipe the smile off that critters face!

[Guest Big Time Software]

BlackVoid... as others have pointed out, we are not going to make helterskelter point cost changes. This is apparently how other games do it, and it quite frankly sucks We have complex, and unbiased, equations that give weights to the various capabilities of each vehicle. We do not go on some sort of intangable feeling. For example, did you know that point costs reflect ammo loadouts? A Sherman 75 has a killer supply of HE, while a Jagdtiger had better not miss. These factors, and many more, are all taken into account. Therefore, the point costs are about as fair and well rounded as they can get. Perhaps not perfect, but scientific and well rounded.

Like Slapdragon said, unless someone comes up with a better mouse trap we aren't changing a single thing.

For a detailed answer to the changes with 1.1's Combined Arms Quick Battles, check out my answer:

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

Steve

[Panther131]

Polar: I had trouble understanding your post in its entirety. Either I can't read well, your spelling / train of thought misguided me.

Anyways...not all people who believe in UFO's are kooks. You dont believe in UFO's?

Ummm...My assumption was based on looking at the reason (stated by BTS) why the change was made and then looking at the actual change(s) made. IMO, I did not see any difference or improvement made. Only that the the units base allocation changed, that means just different units are to be used. No change in balance, and no change in historical accuracy. To me 1.05 is just as accurate as 1.1. And 1.05 is really pretty balanced.

Funny thing is, now that BTS has weighed in...why is that when an allied player(s) complains or makes some noise BTS says ok...we will change that. "the allied player cries " german armor is too heavy; german armor is to good; lower thier armor points" It is done. However when a German centric player says "this point reduction is unfair" it is considered whinning and all sorts of other "german armor lover" type things.

Gee...one side says german armor too good, the other says hey we think allied is now too good...now what do you do? How can you tell what is right?

I still believe at the very least that I am right about BTS wanting to get more people to play more balanced in terms of sides. ie: There are too many german lovers. Lets face it, when using the germans, people could get KT's in 1000 point battles, and you would see a lot of german players, even if they did lose with that KT almost everytime.

[Panther131]

Posted by BTS: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Like Slapdragon said, unless someone comes up with a better mouse trap we aren't changing a single thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee BTS...who came up with the point change from 1.05 to 1.1 in the first place? This is what I do not understand. Yes, I do understand that there were alot of complaints about "germen armor too abundent, but know there are plenty of people complaining about not enough german armor points. Surely it was not a just a couple of forum participants that gave you a price point suggestion on how this "better axis armor" can be softened up.

My point is, it seems as though you have changed the armor points becouse of X complaints, but you refuse to look at the Y compliants and just say that it aint gonna happen unless somebody comes up with a better idea. I dont get this. It is you game so naturally you can do hat ever you want with it, but it sees pretty clear that you are looking at it from one side. After all, I can only speculate that the changes made came from with in BTS.

[Slapdragon]

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

Posted by BTS: Gee BTS...who came up with the point change from 1.05 to 1.1 in the first place? This is what I do not understand. Yes, I do understand that there were alot of complaints about "germen armor too abundent, but know there are plenty of people complaining about not enough german armor points. Surely it was not a just a couple of forum participants that gave you a price point suggestion on how this "better axis armor" can be softened up.

My point is, it seems as though you have changed the armor points becouse of X complaints, but you refuse to look at the Y compliants and just say that it aint gonna happen unless somebody comes up with a better idea. I dont get this. It is you game so naturally you can do hat ever you want with it, but it sees pretty clear that you are looking at it from one side. After all, I can only speculate that the changes made came from with in BTS.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except you are being selective in your memory. Rexford comes up with a good reason why the 17lb is modelled wrong, and illustrates that reason with data, sources, the whole bit. BTS listened and is making a change to the 17lb. Another person just last week wanted the 76mm upgunned but only offered two tables from Hunnicutt, both with known problems, that did not match the physics model. That US 76 did not have its power increased.

The only reason it seems the Germans are getting turned down more is because they get 9 in 10 posts requesting increases with no basic.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Panther:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>german armor is too heavy; german armor is to good; lower thier armor points" It is done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. Someone points out that we have made a FACTUAL error (the Jumbo mantlet is two pieces, not one, which makes it weaker than we have it) and we correct it. It makes no difference if it is Allied or German. But when someone whines and complains that their German tanks blow up too easily, we promptly ignore the request. Put another way:

"BTS, your game says that there are 9mm in a centimeter. There are in fact 10 mm in a centimeter"

vs.

"BTS, I think a centimeter isn't long enough. It should be the width of my little finger".

Both might be correct, but we will only listen to the type of person that makes arguments like the first one, not the second one.

The logic for our changes is there for people to call into question. Trying to duck the logic by saying we are biased merely reinforces our well founded belief that too many German players have unrealistic, and undefendable, expectations for what German equipment could really do. And when pressed, the whine and complain instead of engaging in constructive and factually based debate.

BTW, I flat out said that we did not even think about this change steering people to play as the Allies in another thread. So please, put that thought to bed since it is 100% incorrect. If the change does make more people interested in playing the Allies, fine, but that wasn't even in our minds when we made the change.

Steve

[photon]

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

My point is, it seems as though you have changed the armor points becouse of X complaints, but you refuse to look at the Y compliants and just say that it aint gonna happen unless somebody comes up with a better idea. I dont get this. It is you game so naturally you can do hat ever you want with it, but it sees pretty clear that you are looking at it from one side. After all, I can only speculate that the changes made came from with in BTS.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The key difference you overlook here is that the points for a particular vehicle are determined not by what Steve and Charles think they should be, but by the results of a mathematical formula they have chosen. The point distribution is simply arbitrary (as far as I know - it would be very difficult to sample good data by which you might arrange a formula to predict those)

In the one case a new formula must be proposed which will appropriately price more than a hundred vehicles. In the other a new allocation must be proposed which will set a total of 5 numbers. Of the two tasks the former is the more difficult by far and therefore demands more rigor and thoughtfulness from one who would propose changes.

I would wager that if someone presents a comprehensive formula set with justification that produces results that are believable for the whole range of vehicles then BTS would consider it.

- Photon

[Panther131]

Posted by Slapdragon: [quoteExcept you are being selective in your memory. Rexford comes up with a good reason why the 17lb is modelled wrong, and illustrates that reason with data, sources, the whole bit. BTS listened and is making a change to the 17lb. Another person just last week wanted the 76mm upgunned but only offered two tables from Hunnicutt, both with known problems, that did not match the physics model. That US 76 did not have its power increased.

The only reason it seems the Germans are getting turned down more is because they get 9 in 10 posts requesting increases with no basic.