how come you have more tanks!

[Chad Harrison]

in another TCP game this weekend, it was brought up that the americans had more tanks than the germans. it was a Combined arms QB ME, and i had ASSUMED that we both had the same amount of points for each group (infantry, support, vehicles, armour, artillery). in a QB ME for combined arms, i thought it was equal points for each group (as named above) for each side. wrong. my football coach once taught me what happens when you assume, and it was so.

so afterwards i looked into it, and found something that i did not know (and maybe i was the only one! ) heres what you get, as a percentage of your total points:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Infantry: US 56%, GER 62%

<LI>Support: US 25.2%, Ger 24.8%

<LI>Vehicle: US 20%, Ger 25%

<LI>Armour: US 30%, Ger 20%

<LI>Artillery: US 18.7%, Ger 15%

to explain, in a 1000pts QB, US get 300pts for armour, the Germans get 200 pts. a big difference? no, not really, the germans just need to play with those extra vehicle points. now look at a 2000 pt QB. allied armour points: 600, german armour points: 400. advantage? well, thats a lot of extra armour punch.

why did BTS do this? i think to represent the fact that most of the time, germany's forces were lots of soldiers with support, vehicles and some tanks, mostly SP guns and assult guns (which would explain the lower points because they cost less). but is this lack of points realistic for june/july/august 44, or for late winter 44?

a remedy is to unrestrict what units could be purchased. that would risk a mixed group being over-ran by someone who bought all armour ubers! but do others feel like this gives the allies an upper hand? personally, i like being the germans and having to use my vehicles and armour more wisely (god bless the 234 series!), but at times i feel a little out gunned by the extra armour.

[offtaskagain]

Considering the fact that almost 50,000 Shermans alone were built, and a similar number of T-34s, that just might outnumber the 30,000 total tanks Germany built during the entire war.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

why did BTS do this? i think to represent the fact that most of the time, germany's forces were lots of soldiers with support, vehicles and some tanks, mostly SP guns and assult guns<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's exactly why they did it.

As for whether it gives the Allies the upper hand, I would say no, I don't think it does. In fact, I would say the Germans are a little easier to win with in combined armes battles.

[Dirtweasle]

..and the germans have a few more points to spend on the vehicles selection. Which is nice as they have those AA trucks, and assault halftracks, etc...

[Stalin's Organ]

Actualy Chad it's really so that if all else fails, and your opponent has bought transport for his guns and started hitched you can stil call him gamey 'cos he selected ermans with their more points for vehicles & infantry, or Allies with their more points for tanks!!

[Chad Harrison]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Actualy Chad it's really so that if all else fails, and your opponent has bought transport for his guns and started hitched you can stil call him gamey 'cos he selected ermans with their more points for vehicles & infantry, or Allies with their more points for tanks!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats it! its a conspiracy to thwart the americans who never bring transports! you know thats why the americans beat the germans, they were gamey and gamey fighters always win! (thanks stalin, i created a monster in that post, and i makes me LoL! )

[JasonC]

The allies need it, because a tank with weak armor and a gun only as powerful as the standard 75 on all the German beasties (the 76mm) costs 150+ points, while the Germans get thick front armor and the same gun for 100 pts, plus or minus 20 (Jadgpanzer or Hezter). Also, just as a bit of trivia related to one of the side comments, the Germans didn't have much armor left in the west by August '44.

If you want a realistic German panzer division force, built around full, turreted tanks, take the "armor" force type. That's what the thing is for. And use the same for a US or British armored division force. The combined arms force type is meant to show AFV supported infantry forces, which for the Allies means a few medium tanks or TDs, and for the Germans meant a few assault guns or self-propelled guns of one type or another.

Tigers and Panthers and Panzer IVs were with the Panzer divisions and used in quantity, as many tank platoons as infantry platoons, or not more than twice as many infantry ones. That is not what a combined arms force type is.

On the Allied side, each infantry division often had a battalion of tanks or TDs, or both, supporting the infantry, and that is what the combined arms force type is meant for. But armor division forces would have mostly armored vehicles, roughly 1/3rd Shermans, 1/3 halftracks carrying armored infantry, and 1/3rd everything else - light tanks, armored cars, TDs, assault guns, etc. In CM terms that means most of the force spent on "armor", a fair amount on "vehicles", and modest amounts on "infantry" and "artillery". Which is the armor force type.

Also, there is no reason to restrict fights to symmetrical forces. An armor attacker can hit an infantry defense, or a mechanized recon force have a meeting engagement with a combined arms force, etc. If you are worried about play balance, just play the same settings twice (not map or forces, let those change for variety), and switch sides the second time.

[Ales Dvorak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Infantry: US 56%, GER 62%

<LI>Support: US 25.2%, Ger 24.8%

<LI>Vehicle: US 20%, Ger 25%

<LI>Armour: US 30%, Ger 20%

<LI>Artillery: US 18.7%, Ger 15%

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Turn the type of battle to unrestricted for both sides and .......there you are.

[Philistine]

For more discussion (and name-calling) then you can shake a stick at on this topic, see the following threads which came about around the time the change was made:

First Thread

Second Thread

Third Thread

I think there were probably a couple of others. To say that this was exhaustively discussed is something of an understatement

Here is Steve's explanation from one of the Threads:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>42

posted 01-21-2001 10:59 PM

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

OK,

Seems there has been quite a few, heated, threads about a rather small change we made for Combined Arms Quick Battle point allocations. As you read this, remember that this only applies for COMBINED ARMS type battles.

What we did:

We made changes to the force pools (Infantry/Support/Vehicle/Armor/Artillery/Fortification) after much public feedback about Combined Arms QBs. In some ways these changes "favor" the Allied player, but in other ways favors the German player. These changes also help create more realistic, yet balanced, forces in terms of composition. This is the whole concept behind having force pools in the first place (i.e. you don’t get 1000 points to spend on anything you like).

Let me be clear here... these changes are designed to make Combined Arms Quick Battles more balanced, and in some ways more realistic, than before. These changes were not made to favor the Allied player, but rather counteract certain advantages for German players prior to 1.1 which will, in the end, make both sides more balanced and realistic than they were before.

What we didn't do:

Before I get into the details, let me get rid of one false claim I have seen in the two big threads discussing this issue so far. Some people appear to think both sides used to be (1.05) issued the same number of maximum points for each force pool and that 1.1. departed from this “equality”, therefore we shouldn’t mess with the system in such a new way. It is important to understand this is a false claim since things were never “equal” in terms of how much each side had to spend on a particular unit category. Therefore, the changes made to 1.1 did not break “equality” since it never existed.

Basic, fundamental reasoning in favor of the changes (i.e. the “need” :

The current system for rating units, in terms of points, favors the Germans. The primary reason is that there is no “Rarity” system. So while a Puma might be priced correctly in relation to its characteristics, it can be purchased at any time and in unrealistic numbers. This puts the Allies at a disadvantage because their vehicles are, for the most part, very common but less capable. In the real war the Allies had the real advantage because they had the numbers. In other words, the Stuart might not be as good as a Puma vs. common enemy AFVs, but so few Pumas were ever made they were rarely encountered while the Stuart was a fairly common sight. If you don’t run into something, it doesn’t matter how good it is. We are going to fix this with CM2 using an optional Rarity system.

The other way the point system favors the Germans is the price is based on how good a vehicle is against infantry as well as armor. The US tanks were, for the most part, very good at engaging infantry targets but rather poor at taking on other tanks. For the most part, German tanks and tank destroyers were excellent at taking on other tanks and at least OK against infantry. Some German tank destroyers were piss poor at taking on infantry. The end result is that point for point, German tanks and TDs are better than Allied ones in AFV vs. AFV encounters but significantly not as good versus infantry targets. Thus, if there are only enough points to purchase two “armor” units for each side, the Germans will fare much better all other things equal since the Germans have far more ways of dealing with armor (panzerfaust, Panzerschreck, Pumas, etc.) and a healthy choice for dealing with infantry (various 75mm armed Vehicles).

With more points available for the game the German player can make this imbalance worse by purchasing rather inexpensive, infantry inept, vehicles for tank killing duties (Hetzer) and a decent number of Vehicles for dealing with infantry (250/9, 251/8, and 234/3 in particular). And again, not paying any attention to how rare things like the 234/3 were in the real war. The Allied player, on the other hand, can not compete with these choices all else being equal.

To sum up the problems:

The lack of a Rarity system undeniable favors the German player. At the same time (in 1.05 and earlier), the point costs for units slightly favors the Germans when in a Combined Arms setting due to the allocations for each of the force pools is laid out.

Fixing the problems:

There isn’t much we can do about the Rarity problem right now, but there certainly is in terms of force pool totals. Here are the points laid out (Inf/Sup/Veh/Arm/Art/For) for a Meeting Engagement of 1000 points:

1.05

Allied - 450/146/400/300/187/0

Germ - 450/135/400/300/150/0

1.1

Allied - 560/252/200/300/187/0

Germ - 620/248/250/200/150/0

Here is the logic behind these changes:

#1 Allied Vehicles force pool point reduction - The Allies do not have to spend a large percentage of their total points on useless Vehicles. Not only does this favor the Allied player, but also reduces the “gamey” over purchase of things like Jeeps, which is good for the Germans and realism in general.

#2 German Armor force pool reduction - The Germans were too likely to enter the battlefield with “heavies” even in rather small battles. The Allies were at a disadvantage because they didn’t have enough points to overcome the “heavies” with superior numbers. Now the Germans will find themselves more evenly matched.

#3 German Infantry pool point increase - The German standard infantry has less men per unit than the Allies, yet their prices aren’t significantly less because of their weapons (LMG42, Panzerfaust, etc.). Now the Germans can purchase more infantry so they can, if the player wishes, match the Allies man for man. For a 1000 point battle (what we think of as “average” both sides can now afford to purchase a full Company TO&E, which was not possible before.

#4 Allied & German Support force pool point increase - Both German and Allied players had their Support pools increased. This was done to support the increased ability to purchase infantry.

For other combos we changes points as well, for example allowing the Germans to have more Fortification points for an Assault type battle. Again, all with the eye of giving the particular type of battle a more balanced and realistic feeling than with previous versions.

What it all means in the end:

Force pool changes were made in order to create better balanced, more realistic forces for both sides in a given situation. Some people have challenged this as being the end result, but so far we haven’t seen any examples in other threads that have supported this notion. On the contrary, the forces that we have seen people list as examples are very nicely balanced out.

The player most likely to complain about these changes is the German player who is overly attached to using “heavies” to win battles instead of utilizing more realistic forces and better tactics. For those people all I can say is that it was always our intention to have balanced QBs. Through a lot of feedback we found that there were some balancing issues and therefore we felt change was needed. These corrections are not all in favor of the Allied player, but the do have an overall effect beneficial to the Allied player. And that was the desired end result since we (and many here on this BBS) felt the Germans had a distinct advantage.

We welcome further discussion on the changes we made, but we are positive that overall we have struck a much better balance than 1.05, so reverting to the way it used to be is not likely to happen.

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

--Philistine

[Chad Harrison]

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

For more discussion (and name-calling) then you can shake a stick at on this topic, see the following threads which came about around the time the change was made:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thanks for all the info! as i had said above, thats why i thought they did it, i just wanted to make sure i wasnt missing some big picture! sherman comes in at 117pts, and the StuG IIG 93, hetzer 83. that gives the battles more of a realistic feel.

i just brought it up because some had mentioned that they felt it was unbalanced. thanks fellas!