Some unbalanced armor costs

[Panther131]

Ok I guess I am wrong...My mind just does not work that well in scientific thought. Never has never will...unless I start applying myslef in a physics class.

Sorry to BTS if I have upset them. Yes I love German armor, but only becouse I think their designs were beautiful. Their armor has personality something the U.S. seems to lack. (JMO)

But this does not mean that, that was the basis of my argument.

I guess my mind works more artictically then scientifically. Plus I would be such a lazy scientist and a bad lawer too

So in the end I give up on my alien theories and say the hell with it... I like a good fight when I see one...I guess I got a little carried away. Just trying to serve and protect so to say. I like doing that once and a blue moon. I did enjoy the aruments with slapdragon though as he always had something (fairly ) relevent to say and always had lots of conetent. (even if I disagreed with him. Well the way of the....gun?

So BTS (Steve) ...sorry, you win...I am no german armor specialist, and do not have the ambition as rexford so incredibly does as he gives us mass amounts of armor infromation that amazes most of us...well...hope all is forgiven and now we go back to sanity until the next UFO passes overhead.

Toodle Dooo.

[Slapdragon]

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But Slap thats ubsurd. The reason I think so is becouse proving the way a gun operates or its effectiveness backed up with facts is merely pointing to one unit. Rexford pretty much looks at one particular unit, and then he looks at inormation regarding that unit and compares it to CM. That is entrily different from " German armor is too good; lower the points" How can I possibly quantify the difference in the point allocation to be false? What can I calculate here? I also imagine that the people who complained about the allied needing more of an advantage in armor to win were not saying "BTS: I have found that X is armor is X stength, and Y armor is Y strength; so I believe a reduction in armor need to be made". What I want to know...is...what kind of hard facts were made that persuaded BTS to make this change. BTS says "unless someone comes up with a better mouse trap we aren't changing a single thing."

What kind of mouse trap did the people who wanted the change give BTS? This is what I am most interested in. I just do not see how one can quantify this, unless they ran say...500 ca me's at 1000 points and tallied the wins and loses for axis and allied. This would be really the only way to see if there really is an unbalance of one side winning more then the other. If you know of a simpler way great. Uhhh...and...I dont have the time for such an experiment.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Photon wrote:

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

Very true. Here is an example...

Jumbo turret mantlet armor reduced because we had a flawed understanding of how it was constructed. Evidence was presented to us that we had it wrong, a change was made. Benefit goes to the German player.

Some folks presented data that the Tiger 1E mantlet was actually quite a bit thicker in spots. We put in special code to take this into account. Benefit goes to the German player.

Hmmm... two cases presented equally well. Both favored the German player. Both were implemented. I suppose we should listen to Allied players if they don't like this and change it back simply because they are complaining? Oh... I think not

Again, the system we have in place for unit point values is unbiased. It is a straight forward set of equations that figures out the "true" value of a unit based on certain factors. In one tank it might bring up the score, in another bring it down. Nowhere does the equation look to see what the nationality or player perception bias is. So if someone has a problem with the point system, they need to show us how and why it is consistantly wrong. Otherwise there will be no changes.

Interesting to note that although MANY people have complained about the price of this or that vehicle or other unit, German or Allied, nobody has been able to come up with a better, and fairer, system than what we have in place now.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Panther:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sorry to BTS if I have upset them. Yes I love German armor, but only becouse I think their designs were beautiful. Their armor has personality something the U.S. seems to lack. (JMO)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem. In fact, I agree with you. On my two monitors here I have models (which I built) of a Flak36, Jagdpanther, King Tiger, Panther A, Jagdtiger, Tiger, Pak75, Flak38, and a StuG G. I also have two "toy" soldiers, both are German. I have a smashed up M3 HT in eye sight (cat killed it with my metal Tiger, which is on my desk, formerly on my monitor) and some other Allied stuff in a box. Most of it "shot up" And when I went to The Royal Tank Museum I took picture after picture of German armor, and probably only one shot of something or other Allied.

So while I agree that German stuff is "cooler", I do not agree that this translates into "better" when comparing it with Allied stuff. For example, I think the Kar98K is a sexy rifle compared to the M1 Garand, but owning one of each I can tell you that I wouldn't take a 98k into the field over a Garand any day of the week if my life depended on it.

CM is the same way. It tries, as hard as it can, to seperate fact from ficion. Sometimes it is not so easy to do this, but we do try our best. And we do so as scienficially as possible.

Steve

[Panther131]

Wait BTS, one thing.

You have given examples of individual units being changed. And this is good (of course!). Sound examples of armor accuracy of specific units quantify change. But how is lowering the entire force pool quantified? This is what I am after, not the individual units. As I see it, when adjusting an induividual unit its price will rise with its effectiveness on the battle field. So in effect, by changing an individual unit, the force pool is changed as well. Yet there is a huge change in the force pool. This is the part that I dont understand. If individual units price change, in effect, changes to the force pool are made as well. Why is there an additional force pool amount change?

How does one quantify a change in the an entire force pool? This is the part I do not understand. (sorry to be a nag)

[Guest KwazyDog]

Panther, Steve posted a large thread about this just recently, you should check it out for further explainations, and if you have any questions post them over there.

Dan

[Guest Big Time Software]

Panther:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How does one quantify a change in the an entire force pool? This is the part I do not understand. (sorry to be a nag)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dan is correct. Check out this thread:

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

It contains the logic for the change. See... unlike mm of armor there is no one right answer for force composition. It is all about less tangible historical realities that are not necessarily found in charts and tables. The answers to force pool allocations is PARTIALLY based on charts and tables (TO&E, numbers produced, etc.) but is more done based on "typical force" and adjusted by "balance". So this is an art, not a science.

The difference is that we approach something like force pool numbers as if it WERE a science. The thread linked to above shows that there is deliberate logic to our system.

Note, the original point allocations in 1.05, and earlier, are no more or less scientific than 1.1. So changing them is not inherently wrong or less realistic since the original numbers were pulled out of our butts In other words, we did a best guess and found that we did a pretty good job. But for the rational and logical reasons stated in the above noted thread, we feel that we needed to improve upon the earlier guesses. Others feel the same way. So far nobody against these changes has presented a counter case against our reasoning. Well, nothing more than "I liked it the way it was before because I could buy a King Tiger". Not good enough

Steve

[Henri]

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

Again, the system we have in place for unit point values is unbiased. It is a straight forward set of equations that figures out the "true" value of a unit based on certain factors.

[snip]

Interesting to note that although MANY people have complained about the price of this or that vehicle or other unit, German or Allied, nobody has been able to come up with a better, and fairer, system than what we have in place now.

[snip][later]

Note, the original point allocations in 1.05, and earlier, are no more or less scientific than 1.1. So changing them is not inherently wrong or less realistic since the original numbers were pulled out of our butts In other

words, we did a best guess and found that we did a pretty good job.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be difficult to do, since the BTS equations have not been made public...How could one determine if is system is "better" without being able to compare the two?

I don't know how to reconcile the two above statements by BTS.How can one pull an unbiased set of equaltions out of one's butt? :

Henri

[This message has been edited by Henri (edited 01-22-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

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

That would be difficult to do, since the BTS equations have not been made public...How could one determine if is system is "better" without being able to compare the two?

I don't know how to reconcile the two above statements by BTS.How can one pull an unbiased set of equaltions out of one's butt? :

Henri

[This message has been edited by Henri (edited 01-22-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By doing exactly what BTS did -- develop one you feel is fair. If they did it, you can do it with excel and a few weekends of spare time. I did the same thing for Squad Leader in 1986, mailed the results in to the General, got a nice letter back from Greenwood, and although in the age before chatrooms did not know what ever happened to it, I had done it. Just a case of a set of complex formulas that once constructed can have numbers plugged in.

Now, you can just play a set of games, the more the better, using your numbers. Design the scenarios based on your points construct and see how it goes. Save the files, and tell BTS how it worked out. What makes this really hard is the BTS playtested their system and it produced very close games in most situations so finding a way to make your better is a case of splitting some hairs, but it is possible.

Now before anyone says, "no fair, BTS shoudl release its source code" so I can look at it and tweek it until it matches what I want I should also point out BTS is a company in business to make money, and no company intended to put bread on the table gives away the trade secrets it sells.

[Wolfe]

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

Jumbo turret mantlet armor reduced because we had a flawed understanding of how it was constructed. Evidence was presented to us that we had it wrong, a change was made. Benefit goes to the German player.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve, with this change can the Panther's gun now kill the Jumbo frontally?

- Chris

[Jarmo]

OK, this flies right in the face of what BTS just said about proving one's point with facts.

But anyway, Hetzer is too cheap dammit!

Just look at all the posts where someone tries to prove the Germans can still have

a good effective tank force in 1.1, just about every example uses Hetzers.

I know the weaknesses of the little beast, they are numerous.

But still, the strong frontal armor overcomes the shortcomings.

The only reasons I don't use them all of the time are:

1. I feel like cheating if I do.

2. My opponents think I'm cheating if I do.

3. It's forbidden in "short 75"

4. Hetzer wasn't the most commong AFV the germans had.

100 points is my suggestion.

About the same as Stug, and I know I'd still prefer the Hetzer.

[Polar]

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guarantee that it was because I can't write.

Essentially, went someone says "they haven't denied it, therefor it is true" forget that the lack of response simply could have been because the other person thinks you are a kook and not worth the effort.

Now that BTS has responded it is a moot point anyway. But they responded more due to the volume of the noise, and not the fidelity of the signal... if you know what I mean.

Maybe my mind is wandering again...

Joe

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

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

[rwcanuck]

With many us now playing TCP/IP games Blackvoid has a point especially about the cost of a Churchill VIII.

To finish an online under 2 hours most players that I know of choose 1250 pts or less, a 5 minute timer and 20 to 30 turns.

With this in mind I am seeing the Allied side player choosing the Churchill more and more because of the low cost and difficulty to knock it out with what the German player can buy for 1250 pts or less.

If BTS is not going to increase the point value of the Churchill what is the next best solution for online gamers other than saying NO Churchills allowed or "Infantry only" games?

[Marlow]

I personally have little problem with most of the point values for armor in CM (my biggest complaint, would be on the lack of non-TOE infantry for the allies to combat the extensive use by Axis players of SMG equipped German squads to the exclusion of the standard rifle squad, but that is another matter). In particular:

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Churchill has some advantages; however, its speed, and relatively weak gun justify its cost. Once a Churchill is committed, it is very difficult to extricate it, and shift it to a new position on the field. In contrast, fast vehicles can be used in force at one point of contact, and then, after they have done their job, can be shifted to another spot. This allows for concentration of force at more than one point that is not possible for the Church. Also, it is difficult to use the Churchill to react to enemy threats. If one is in the reserve, it can be difficult to bring it up in time to do any good.

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

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?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Tiger is about right where it is. It is already cheaper than some Sherman variants.

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 75mm Sherman is definitely a good buy. For only slightly more than the cost of the best 76mm equipped Sherman (excluding the Jumbo) you can purchase a vanilla M4 and an M18/M36. This essentially gives you two for the price of one, both optimized for their intended roles. As far as not seeing them in QBs, I use them to good effect.

[BlackVoid]

I am really amazed at the level of support BTS is providing. I love CM and I will continue to play it even if you do not change anything.

All I can say is Thank you!

But I won't give up on my topic.

A question to BTS:

Is the survivability modelled in your equations?

My post was not based on any scientific or historical data, it was based on the many quick battles I played. And I am not bad either, just check me out on Tournamenthouse: www.tournamenthouse.com

In quick battles Hetzer's and Churchills are a very common sight while Tiger's, Stugs and M4 Shermans are vanishingly rare. This tells me that something is not right with the point allocation.

Let's look at the Stug. It has a higher rate of fire than a Hetzer, it has a good ammo loadout and has more machineguns. Still, noone I know buys them in QBs. And I know the reason: the survivability of a Stug is VERY LOW. Any allied armor or AT gun can take it out.

Now let's have a look at the Churchill. Yes it is slow and has a weak gun. The 75 mm version at least . The 95mm on the other hand is the best infantry support tank in the game. Someone mentioned that infantry can take it out. It cannot. It does not take a genius to figure out that the Churchill has to be protected by infantry. And even if it is not protected it can easily defend itself on open terrain with it's fast turret.

Of all the things that can take out the Churchill, most are luxury items for the german player. 88mm AT guns are very expensive and very vulnerable to mortar fire. The list of mobile assets that can take it out is very short:

Jagdpanther

Jagdtiger

Kingtiger

Panther

Of course with flank or short range attacks the list is longer, but a good player will not give you this opportunity. This leaves the german player with only two choices: Puppchen or AT mines. The latter are only good on restricted terrain though.

The lack of mobility for the Churchill means that it is only good on the offense, where the attacking player can decide where he is going to attack. On defense, where they have to react to the enemies movements they are no good at all.

Until the cost of the Churchill is increased I have no other choice as defending with axis but:

1. Play by special rules where the Churchill is not allowed (I even play Fionn's Panther 76 rule with no Churchills allowed)

2. Buy a ridiculous amount of Puppchens

3. Play on gentle slopes or flat terrain where I can place AT mines.

4. Play in rain or snow, so that the Churchill is likely to bog down.

I know that many feel the same way: the CHURCHILL is an undestructible bargain for the allied player.

[Marlow]

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

In quick battles Hetzer's and Churchills are a very common sight while Tiger's, Stugs and M4 Shermans are vanishingly rare. This tells me that something is not right with the point allocation.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but I don't agree. I am currently playing a 5000 pt battle (where there was no prior agreement on force restrictions) and the most common armor on each side are Stugs for the Germans (me) and M4s for the Americans.

[Slapdragon]

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

I am really amazed at the level of support BTS is providing. I love CM and I will continue to play it even if you do not change anything.

All I can say is Thank you!

But I won't give up on my topic.

A question to BTS:

Is the survivability modelled in your equations?

My post was not based on any scientific or historical data, it was based on the many quick battles I played. And I am not bad either, just check me out on Tournamenthouse: www.tournamenthouse.com

In quick battles Hetzer's and Churchills are a very common sight while Tiger's, Stugs and M4 Shermans are vanishingly rare. This tells me that something is not right with the point allocation.

Let's look at the Stug. It has a higher rate of fire than a Hetzer, it has a good ammo loadout and has more machineguns. Still, noone I know buys them in QBs. And I know the reason: the survivability of a Stug is VERY LOW. Any allied armor or AT gun can take it out.

Now let's have a look at the Churchill. Yes it is slow and has a weak gun. The 75 mm version at least . The 95mm on the other hand is the best infantry support tank in the game. Someone mentioned that infantry can take it out. It cannot. It does not take a genius to figure out that the Churchill has to be protected by infantry. And even if it is not protected it can easily defend itself on open terrain with it's fast turret.

Of all the things that can take out the Churchill, most are luxury items for the german player. 88mm AT guns are very expensive and very vulnerable to mortar fire. The list of mobile assets that can take it out is very short:

Jagdpanther

Jagdtiger

Kingtiger

Panther

Of course with flank or short range attacks the list is longer, but a good player will not give you this opportunity. This leaves the german player with only two choices: Puppchen or AT mines. The latter are only good on restricted terrain though.

The lack of mobility for the Churchill means that it is only good on the offense, where the attacking player can decide where he is going to attack. On defense, where they have to react to the enemies movements they are no good at all.

Until the cost of the Churchill is increased I have no other choice as defending with axis but:

1. Play by special rules where the Churchill is not allowed (I even play Fionn's Panther 76 rule with no Churchills allowed)

2. Buy a ridiculous amount of Puppchens

3. Play on gentle slopes or flat terrain where I can place AT mines.

4. Play in rain or snow, so that the Churchill is likely to bog down.

I know that many feel the same way: the CHURCHILL is an undestructible bargain for the allied player.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 75 M4 is always my first purchase after I am done getting my infantry together. I see them all the time as Germans. I think the only thing I see a lot that is rare is King Tigers, and even then it is not much of a worry, since they have distinct vulnerabilities if you are willing to pay the piper to exploit them.

[Guest Big Time Software]

BlackVoid:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is the survivability modelled in your equations?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, but there is no "survivability" factor as such. It instead comes through basic capabilities, like how many MGs it has and how much ammo they have, as well as vehicle speed, turret speed, armor, etc. The better a vehicle rates, the more surviable it is, the more expensive it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In quick battles Hetzer's and Churchills are a very common sight while Tiger's, Stugs and M4 Shermans are vanishingly rare. This tells me that something is not right with the point allocation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think it does. First of all, Tigers should be rather rare. They were serving in ever smaller numbers in 1944 because prdocution was ceased in June. Why? Because it had outlived its production value. The Tiger of August 44 was not the same beast it was in August of 43.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let's look at the Stug. It has a higher rate of fire than a Hetzer, it has a good ammo loadout and has more machineguns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A Hetzer is more nimble for sure, has much better armored (in front at least), andpresents a very small target. It is less expensive than a StuG, but not by much, because its negatives are offset (to some degree) by its positives vs. a StuG.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Still, noone I know buys them in QBs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an opinion. Even if it were true, it the blame would be pointed at the lack of a Rarity system and not the basic unit point cost. Do not confuse people's choices with the inherent worth of the vehicle itself.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And I know the reason: the survivability of a Stug is VERY LOW. Any allied armor or AT gun can take it out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Catch a Hetzer from the side and it can be taken out by a 12 year old with a bad attitude Each has its trade offs. In a defensive position I probably would take a Hetzer, but on the move I would most likely go with a StuG.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now let's have a look at the Churchill. Yes it is slow and has a weak gun. The 75 mm version at least . The 95mm on the other hand is the best infantry support tank in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The downsides of this vehicle class are real, and should not be brushed aside. Plus, look at the cost of a StuH 42. You can just about buy two StuHs for the price of one Churchill VIII. Which option would I take? The two StuHs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Of course with flank or short range attacks the list is longer, but a good player will not give you this opportunity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point cost has nothing to do with how well this or that vehicle is used. This is a black hole if entered into. For example, if you applied the same argument to a Hetzer the thing should probably be priced three or four times higher. A Jagdtiger should be a billion points because nothing on God's Green Earth can take that thing out frontally. Heck, even German stuff couldn't scratch that sucker at most ranges. So why not raise the cost of the Jagdtiger (which is the most expensive AFV in the game).

Point is that introducing "likely use" into the equation is a very bad idea. It is arbitrary at best, and in reality every vehicle, if used propperly, would be much better. So if this was factored in it would probably be a wash.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This leaves the german player with only two choices:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it leaves the German player with one great choice -> better tactics. I'll take on a Churchill any day. It doesn't frighten me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The lack of mobility for the Churchill means that it is only good on the offense, where the attacking player can decide where he is going to attack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, in my opinion. It is poor on the offensive if the enemy has any unknown assets and/or a mobile AT capability. Someone else outlined how difficult it is to use a Churchill in a real combat situation on the attack, and I agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Until the cost of the Churchill is increased I have no other choice as defending with axis but:

1. Play by special rules where the Churchill is not allowed (I even play Fionn's Panther 76 rule with no Churchills allowed)

2. Buy a ridiculous amount of Puppchens

3. Play on gentle slopes or flat terrain where I can place AT mines.

4. Play in rain or snow, so that the Churchill is likely to bog down.

I know that many feel the same way: the CHURCHILL is an undestructible bargain for the allied player. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or option #5... use better tactics and beat the snot out of the Brit player for wasting points on such a dubious vehicle choice. A Cromwell VIII is a much better choice in my opinion. Cheaper, for starters, it is also twice as fast and has very good frontal armor. With 300 points to spend I would rather buy a Cromwell VIII and a Firefly than a Churchill VIII and Sherman with a 75mm gun. The former choice has real AT teeth and mobility, the latter lacks AT teeth and is hobbled by a very slow element.

Steve

[BlackVoid]

Steve,

Please give me a tip how to take out two infantry and daimler AC supported Churchills moving between the edge of the map and a forest or other impassable obstacle in a 1250 pts QB. Brit player is attacking of course and your AT guns have fallen to enemy arty.

I would really appreciate it.

I would also love to play you as a Brit and see your tactics in action.

My ICQ: 100082586

[Guest Big Time Software]

BlackVoid,

Sounds like you are screwed It sounds like it wouldn't matter what the enemy had. Sherman 75s, Cromwell VIIIs, whatever. If you don't have adequate AT assets, and the enemy has armor, you are up a creek. So the point costs are totally irrelevant.

And that it the major point here. The cost of a vehicle has nothing to do with how good/bad it is in any one particular instance. Trends are important, but they can't be taken out of context of what other possibilities the player could have made. Using your current situation as an example, could you do any better against Cromwell VIIIs or Sherman 105 support tanks? If the answer is "no", then obviously tweaking points isn't the answer.

The system we have for determining cost is rather simple in concept. It is a scientifically laid out formula that treats every vehicle (unit actually) fairly and without any sort of personal bias.

The equation looks at the elements that help/hinder the unit in various forms of combat, such as armor strength, anti-infantry capabilities, speed, etc. This comes up with ONE price for the unit based on the AVERAGE performance in and AVERAGE situation. What this means is that one vehicle might be cheaper, yet better, than another in a particular set of circumstances.

For example, a Hetzer is cheaper than Allied TDs, and more deadly, but has its own weaknesses. If you utilize the Hetzer in only the best ways, you will get your money's worth out of it for sure. If you fail to do this, for whatever reason, you will quickly find out why it it isn't priced as high as something like a M36 Jackson.

Simply put... there is no perfect pricing arrangement, but arbitrary systems are the worst way of coming up with a fair and equal system. It runs into the same situational problems (i.e. cheap AFV kills all the other guy's more expensive ones and wins the game) but lacks the credibility and fairness of an unbiased scientific approach.

Now... you might be able to say... "Gee, I don't think you weighted the importance of thick frontal armor enough". Well, perhaps. But if we tweaked the values for this, it would NOT be to make the Churchill VIII more expensive. Instead, it would be to make ALL AFVs with thick armor more expensive. So that Churchill VIII might cost 10 more points, but that Jagdtiger might wind up costing 20 more points. And that is the only fair and balanced way to do things.

As for playing... sorry, I don't have any time Plus, about 50 people would send me hate mail for allowing you to "cut in line" if I accepted

Steve

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

BlackVoid,

Sounds like you are screwed It sounds like it wouldn't matter what the enemy had. Sherman 75s, Cromwell VIIIs, whatever. If you don't have adequate AT assets, and the enemy has armor, you are up a creek. So the point costs are totally irrelevant.

Steve

Most people think also that by AT assets, it means other tanks. AT guns, Chrecks, Pupchens, AT guns, and other support weapons make great AT assets.

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

I'm sorry Blackvoid but I have to weigh in here now. I have not sad much of anything about the new QB point changes, mainly because I think we just have to change our tatics to deal with the threat in front of you. You are up a creek. Don't complagin about point cost, try and be sneakier with you AT assests next time. Use you situation as a learning experiance. Last QB I played allies on the defense and my 90mm AAA gun got taken out by a Puma when it was in a perfect longe range revese slope. Do I complain about the point cost of a Puma? No, I realize that I would have been better off with a 57mm ATG and a 40mm bofors instead. Many players, myself included have spent half our starting points on AT assets only to find the enemy rushing you with a huge mass of infantry and heavy arty. I'm convinced that Zhukov fathered many a love child that just happen to be in the CMHQ every night ready to kick my ass in a tcp/ip game.

Sorry If that came off too harsh, Feel free to keep those going. I just think every battle I lose no matter if I made a dumb mistake or whatever, I take it as a learning experience and try not to make the same mistake again. And turn around what got used on me on someone else.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Johnson-<THC>- (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

bump