QB Armor pts CM1.1

[CavScout]

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

You are right Mr Fox, long day I am sorry Gentlemen for my rant . Sadly its more than just a quibble it go's to the hart of the game. I pulled the bible of CM my manual Page 108 "Quick Battles Scenarios are randomly generated battles following the parameters set play player". In a Meeting Engagement should not both players have the same pool of force to draw from. its seems so simple. BTS please end the pain?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where in the manual does it say that ME, using combined arms, are supposed to be exactly the same in regards to force pools?

[Tanaka]

"...you want one German tank for each Allied tank. Some may call that fair... they are generally those who only play Germans"

I want to be able to play in 1:1 armor in ME QB, I call it fair and I play ANY side... read it again ANY side... So your "generally" is a bit narrow

[Bigdog]

No Cav I want the same points, if you have 600 I want 600. If you can get 6AFV I mite get 4AFV mite get 6AFV its my choice how I spend my 600 pts its your choice how you spend your 600. Why is this such a hard concept? If you feel German armor is to cheep that's were it needs to be looked at not like this.

Big Dog

[CavScout]

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

I want to be able to play in 1:1 armor in ME QB, I call it fair and I play ANY side... read it again ANY side... So your "generally" is a bit narrow <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can! You can play equal armor points in armor in a Quick Battle Meeting Engagment.

See that? Equal armor force points in a QB ME! Just select ARMOR for the force!

[CavScout]

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

No Cav I want the same points, if you have 600 I want 600. If you can get 6AFV I mite get 4AFV mite get 6AFV its my choice how I spend my 600 pts its your choice how you spend your 600. Why is this such a hard concept? If you feel German armor is to cheep that's were it needs to be looked at not like this

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YOU CAN! That's why this whole bitch session is bogus. You can play a QB ME with equal armor pool points. You just select ARMOR as the force. You can get what you guys are crying for with a simple mouse click.

[Bigdog]

Cav your a Troll. Please let me correct myself QB Combined Arms Meeting Engagement. Go back to the 1st page that opened this topic will that work for you?

Big Dog

[Slapdragon]

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

Jeeeeeeeeeezzzzz go to work and 6 pages of nothing constructive has happened. Slapy can you put a sock in the this OT crap and stick to freaking point . And Cav you make no points at all.

Big Dog

[This message has been edited by Bigdog (edited 01-17-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Big Dog, your troll turning is unacceptable in any forum. The text of the conversation between Jeff myself and others regarding science and historic method is important, and since this topic degraded, very useful.

I will not put a sock in it, nor does this help your argument. You are better able to argue your point by avoiding this sort of childish comment and sticking with some sort or real arguements.

As for your comment about 5 Shermans vs 5 Panthers, it is absurd. I can think and name dozens of combinations on each side that each turn up equal, and a Panther is more than a match for an E8 in a gunfight Again, if you want the chance to get all the armour you want, just ask to play armour setting while the allies play combined arms. You still get infantry, you get support, and you can spend every point on armour. If you think the Germans still can't win, ask for a 10 or 25% advantage.

[Panther131]

Cav: Just for the record my friend, we are talking about combined arms QB ME's.

Damn it where's BTS!

[Slapdragon]

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

Cav: Just for the record my friend, we are talking about combined arms QB ME's.

Damn it where's BTS!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What he is saying Panther is that the whole argument is moot since there is a work around. Armour can produce a combined arms force by just not spending every dime on armour. Just ask the Allied player to agree to a game that lets you take Armour and they take Combined -- this leaves you will all the points to spend in armour if you want.

[Slapdragon]

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

Cav: Just for the record my friend, we are talking about combined arms QB ME's.

Damn it where's BTS!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it is very important to remember that BTS does not have to jump into this at all. They may, but they do not have to. They get a doizen "make the Germans more powerful" comments, a "make the allies more powerful", and a couple "change the game engine / my tank ignored the infantry / my tanks shot at the Stuart before the Sherman" threads each week. Like this thread, many of the threads don't give a good chain of evidence or include files or complete commentary on the problem and how / why it should be fixed. Instead they say : BTS -- prove to us why you did what you did.

It would be better if some one else came up with a comprehensive and documented argument that supported either the assumption that the QB was not historical or that it tilts game balance instead of just a comment. Again proof works wonders here, not just a blind comment, cause someone will have to recode the problem.

In addition, if someone thinks it is a bug rather than a feature, they should just e-mail BTS on the side rather than throwing it out on the table like this.

[Panther131]

I dont think to many players agree to that condition.

[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-17-2001).]

[Panther131]

If BTS would comment then maybe it could be cleared up for both sides of the argument...Not that BTS has to comment.

It would be nice to hear where they stand. Thats all.

[Slapdragon]

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

I dont think to many players agree to that condition.

[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-17-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it is not important enough to come up with a clear and document case for a change, then it is not important enough to make the change.

[Panther131]

Well this certainly is'nt one of your classes Slap

No seriously, I think it is important. I think that enough has been said already specificaly by jshandorf for considered change.

[CavScout]

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

Cav your a Troll. Please let me correct myself QB Combined Arms Meeting Engagement. Go back to the 1st page that opened this topic will that work for you?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why is it "trolling" to point out where to get what you, and your side, have been calling for? You want EQUAL points in armor. There is a very easy way to get it and you still aren't happy. This thread has been "WAHHHHH! I want equal armor points for the Germans!" Then when someone points how you can do it, you call them a troll. Go figure. You cried out, "No Cav I want the same points, if you have 600 I want 600." I showed how you can but you still aren't happy.

Cav

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

"Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger

Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade

"AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."--Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-18-2001).]

[Vanir]

Ok folks, I tracked it down. The official BTS response is HERE!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On 12-22-00 Charles wrote:

First let's be clear that in "Armor" formations in quick battles, the points available to Axis and Allies for armor are the same (100%).

But for combined arms the Allies are allowed to use a larger chunk for armor (but less for the vehicles cetegory). This is because of two things:

1. The Germans have a much wider range of choice in combat effective vehicles that fall into the "vehicles" category rather than the "armor" category (e.g. all the cannon-armed halftracks).

2. The real German army was more likely to put non-tank AFVs in front-line combat than the Allies were. This is mainly a reflection of the numbers and types of vehicles that they had at their disposal.

Giving equal portions for armor to Axis and Allies in combined arms would result in Allied formations that are way too heavy on halftracks.

Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[Guest JAZZA]

Well after wading through 7 pages since my last post, the majority of it being totally irrelevant posts by cav scout and slapdragon,I'm thinking this thread is dead.

You can't argue what this thread was originally about to two people who refuse to see any of the points made and base their arguments on anything but the topic.I would like to see even points allocations for both sides.If you argue that it's not historical, then I say Q/B m/e's aren't historical.If you argue that my sherman can't compete with a panther,I say thats what individual unit points reflect.Learn better tactic's.If you say people arguing against you are german only players, well I prefer playing as allies.If you say there are even points, go play an armour battle.I don't want to play an armour battle, I would like an even point combined arms meeting engagement.This is the most common format "combined arms".Can you understand that?

[This message has been edited by JAZZA (edited 01-18-2001).]

[CavScout]

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

Well after wading through 7 pages since my last post, the majority of it being totally irrelevant posts by cav scout and slapdragon,I'm thinking this thread is dead.

You can't argue what this thread was originally about to two people who refuse to see any of the points made and base their arguments on anything but the topic.I would like to see even points allocations for both sides.If you argue that it's not historical, then I say Q/B m/e's aren't historical.If you argue that my sherman can't compete with a panther,I say thats what individual unit points reflect.Learn better tactic's.If you say people arguing against you are german only players, well I prefer playing as allies.If you say there are even points, go play an armour battle.I don't want to play an armour battle, I want an even point combined arms meeting engagement.This is the most common format "combined arms".Can you understand that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I say, need cheese with that "whine"?

Anyone who demands equal armor points but also refuse to play armor forces that offer that is either a fool or just arguing for the sake of it.

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-18-2001).]

[Panther131]

I have tried to make this argument JAZZA, but the argumenters on the otherside, think that the problem is fixed by playing an all armored battle. hehe...I mean the problem with that is it will be more then a rough time to find somebody to accept that condition. 1000 point battle, with 1000 points of armor available to the germans and 300 available to the allied. Ah...uh..no way, it aint going to happen. At the same time, it just wouldnt be that much fun as the germans with ath kind of armored advantage.

I disagree with BTS and have done so on this since the change.

I remember speaking with somone in an early tcp/ip game, and during the game we chatted about german and allied armor. It was his opinion that the germans get shafted, and that was before the improved use of tungsten and the lowered armor points in combined arms Me's. I remember him cringing at the thought of the improved tungsten that was then being talked about.

At first I was surprised at his view, but soon afterwords realized that he was right.

BTS says that the germans have a big advantage in the vehicle department . While this is true, the balance of tanks has gone ascew. (as referenced by Jeff H, and Jeff). The problem becomes, what can a 7.5cm gunned halftrack really do with a few rounds of hollow charge with its delicate armor up against easy 8's and Jumbo's? Not too much if you ask me.

I just dont completely get it though. I mean if this is the case BTS, why not do this type of handicaping of armor and vehicle's in all of the type of games? I mean if thats how it was historicaly, which seems to be part of the reason the move was made, why not for all of the catagories...ME, Attack, Probe...etc.

[Guest JAZZA]

I changed my comment from "I want" to "I would like to see even point combined arm m/e's" so it's not a "demand" ,happy now cav scout?

[This message has been edited by JAZZA (edited 01-18-2001).]

[This message has been edited by JAZZA (edited 01-18-2001).]

[Panther131]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I say, need cheese with that "whine"?

Anyone who demands equal armor points but also refuse to play armor forces that offer that is either a fool or just arguing for the sake of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

uhhhhyuuuyuuu. ::shakes head:::

who said anything about refusal to play an all armored battle?

Cavscout Cavscout Cavscout.

You are making a mockary of this cav. hehe. Just a fool? We are or at least I am not arguing for arguing sake...I would beg to differ on that.

There is a huge, I mean huge difference between an armored battle and a combined arms battle. I know you recognize this. It shouldnt be that if I want even points in armor, I have to play an all armored battle. It just should not be like this. I mean, most people play combined arms as it is...ladders are mostly combined arms...I like a mix of units...combined arms...most people I know like a mix of units...Now for the last time, we are arguing for the unbalanced armor in combined arms to be fixed abit. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS!!?? I THINK IT IS CLEAR.

I would say that with your insensible comment about "just play an armored battle and it will fix it" comment...well...nevermind.

[Slyss]

Well we got something finally out of this post. It proves Cavscout and Slapdragon are both experts at avoiding the issue. Hmm. The Clintons are prolly not far down the family tree. "It depends on what you mean by the use of <insert words or phrases or lies or valid points>".

Would anyone find it unfair if this was just put back the way it was? BTW Slappy, you said you played one battle and one. Damn. A whole battle. I guess that make you an expert.

Not everyone has to agree with BTS as if they are the final authority on everything, either. I think its a mistake. Last time I checked we are not living in a country where we are ruled by socialists and not entitled to our own opinions.

People that can't prove their arguments usally change the subject. You two are the best example of that. Go to the slapping machine without out delay right now

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

Play me, and I'll make yah wear your arse for a hat...

[Treeburst155]

As I understand it this thread came about due to perceived unfairness and lack of play balance in QBs. I also fixated on this issue for awhile. Then it dawned on me that CM is not a game of chess. Even if you had identical units (axis vs axis for example) there is still the randomly generated map which often favors one side or the other, sometimes quite heavily. There is also a great deal of luck in CM just as in the real thing. Especially in armor heavy battles. There's no such thing as an even game of CM. Some are more equal than others but none are truly balanced. I don't think it's possible. Even if they were fair, the more skilled player could easily lose due to rotten luck.

I started enjoying CM more as soon as I quit dwelling on the imbalances and luck involved. Think of CM as a combat simulator, not as a game. If you are the competitive type and want to know how you rate against other CMers you have to play MANY games from BOTH sides against many different people. Even in chess your rating is provisional for the first twenty games. I'd say you need to play 100 games of CM in order to assess your skill level with any accuracy.

The way I see it there is no longer any need for the QB feature of CM since there are so many good, well thought out scenarios available now. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of us will never play them all, especially if we reserve them for human opponents. QBs have a sameness to them after awhile and the maps quite often don't make any sense. On top of that they're rarely balanced!

Give up the QBs and the need for a fair game. You will enjoy it more. Pretend you are the commander. Play the role, not the game. If the deck is stacked against you then so be it. That's the way it often was. There is nothing wrong with an honorable surrender after doing the best you can under the circumstances. There's always the next scenario and the one after that.

So they cut down German armor for MEs. Who cares. The game has never been fair. It never will be.

Treeburst155

[Slapdragon]

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

uhhhhyuuuyuuu. ::shakes head:::

who said anything about refusal to play an all armored battle?

Cavscout Cavscout Cavscout.

You are making a mockary of this cav. hehe. Just a fool? We are or at least I am not arguing for arguing sake...I would beg to differ on that.

There is a huge, I mean huge difference between an armored battle and a combined arms battle. I know you recognize this. It shouldnt be that if I want even points in armor, I have to play an all armored battle. It just should not be like this. I mean, most people play combined arms as it is...ladders are mostly combined arms...I like a mix of units...combined arms...most people I know like a mix of units...Now for the last time, we are arguing for the unbalanced armor in combined arms to be fixed abit. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS!!?? I THINK IT IS CLEAR.

I would say that with your insensible comment about "just play an armored battle and it will fix it" comment...well...nevermind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Panther this is not a post criticizing you, but trying to point out where you are wrong. You and Jshandorf are making some good points but are handicapped by this JAZZA and Slyss sillyness (read their last set of comments if you want to know what I mean). This thread has brought out the cry baby "Germans always win" gang like nothing else I have ever seen. I have never seen worse arguments. Anyone who says Germans are at a disadvantage has just never played a human in the game and is just plain ignorant. And they also think that whining like a 4 year old with no logic more powerful than, "wahhhhhh my Germans should be all powerful" is going to attract attention of BTS, who has probably decided that nothing is being presented here and the people who oppose the change are not coming up with anything useful, like a counter argument to weigh down the play testing and thought that went into 1.1.

However, your (Panther, Jshandorf, etc) arguments have been clear and concise, and I believe wrong. There is nothing wrong with asking to play an armour battle. There is nothing unfair about this. 1000 points is 1000 points is 1000 points, and should in the long run averaf You can still win a battle with combined arms, but if you like the tanks forces higher play armoured and just don't spend it all in armour. You can get almost the same force mix as combined arms, and you have no restrictions.

As for combined arms you have a nice set of tank killers / anti-infantry units in the vehicle section, some cheap well-designed tanks (just no King Tigers in a thousand pointer and that is no loss -- you can still get a Panther way cheaper than the closest US tank that can fight it toe to toe) .

The only thing wrong is some of the weaker CM players will need to learn how to use their infantry better. Many of these play Germans only and rely on their tanks 100% it seems. Playing armour for them will also solve this.

If you read the post Vanir set up, what you need to do is decide that this is innaccurate historically or unfair in terms of causing the average German to loose all the time. Just like Vanir and two others, I will play you a QB with current settings, you choose the side I get to play, and lets see what is up. The same goes with Jshandorf or any of the other adults that oppose this change. I will beat you German in attack, defence, or meeting engagement any weather and time of at least I will make it a close fight. If you can walk all over me, skunk me with the US 2 out of 3, then I will conceed you are correct.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

As I understand it this thread came about due to perceived unfairness and lack of play balance in QBs. I also fixated on this issue for awhile. Then it dawned on me that CM is not a game of chess. Even if you had identical units (axis vs axis for example) there is still the randomly generated map which often favors one side or the other, sometimes quite heavily. There is also a great deal of luck in CM just as in the real thing. Especially in armor heavy battles. There's no such thing as an even game of CM. Some are more equal than others but none are truly balanced. I don't think it's possible. Even if they were fair, the more skilled player could easily lose due to rotten luck.

I started enjoying CM more as soon as I quit dwelling on the imbalances and luck involved. Think of CM as a combat simulator, not as a game. If you are the competitive type and want to know how you rate against other CMers you have to play MANY games from BOTH sides against many different people. Even in chess your rating is provisional for the first twenty games. I'd say you need to play 100 games of CM in order to assess your skill level with any accuracy.

The way I see it there is no longer any need for the QB feature of CM since there are so many good, well thought out scenarios available now. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of us will never play them all, especially if we reserve them for human opponents. QBs have a sameness to them after awhile and the maps quite often don't make any sense. On top of that they're rarely balanced!

Give up the QBs and the need for a fair game. You will enjoy it more. Pretend you are the commander. Play the role, not the game. If the deck is stacked against you then so be it. That's the way it often was. There is nothing wrong with an honorable surrender after doing the best you can under the circumstances. There's always the next scenario and the one after that.

So they cut down German armor for MEs. Who cares. The game has never been fair. It never will be.

Treeburst155

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here here Treeburst. Very well said.