What is a Combined Arms QB for?

[danyzn]

In the ferocious argument raging on the QB Armor Points thread, a topic that surfaced before being drowned in vitriol is the question of the point of the Combined Arms QB.

On one side we have people arguing that it is unfair that the Allies get more armor points than the Germans in a Combined Arms QB because QBs are supposed to be equal. The other side rejoins that this is more historically accurate. But QBs are supposed to be balanced, not historical, comes the reply.

Here is my take on it. To be perfectly historical, the Germans would almost always fight with less resources, and this means less points (since points represent effectiveness), and this would certainly be unbalanced. So we definitely need to throw out *this* piece of history to get game balance.

But this doesn't mean we have to throw out *every* piece of history to get game balance. If it is in fact true that the Allies had a higher proportion of armor in their combined arms actions than the Germans, then I don't see anything wrong or unbalancing in having different armor points for the two sides, as long as the total number of points is equal. This way we get game balance with the least historical distortion.

On the other hand, there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to throw out history altogether if we want to. I would welcome a feature where either side can buy anything they want, subject only to mutual agreement. I even think it would be fun to be able to have an Allied force fight a battle with an Allied force. That way both sides draw from the same pool and there can be no question of unbalance.

I think the QB feature now with the different point distribution for the two sides is great for generating reasonably balanced play with the least historical distortion. But it would be nice to have the option to throw history out the window completely for those who desire it. It would save much argument.