QB Armor pts CM1.1

Jeff Heidman · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Here here Treeburst. Very well said.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. Treebursts entire post was basically that it is ok that this change makes things unfair, since it has been unfair anyway, and will always be unfair, and you shouldn't want to play QBs to begin with.

Slapdragon sagely commends Treeburst for his wise words, right after posting 35 messages about how the change does not make things unfair at all.

Jeff Heidman

Simon Fox · January 18, 2001

That's hear, hear Slapdragon you dope.

hehe

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

Muddying the waters as usual.

Polar · January 18, 2001

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

I think a huge poiint you are missing is this... the guy who spend most of his 1000 on armor is going to die a very quick death... save for the occaissional mad rush by tank crews.

I think some people need to learn that spending more points on infantry than armor is a "necessary evil" if you ever want to beat someone with half a brain.

Like I said before, if I were to give JoeAverage GermanArmorLover 1000 points to spend and he went out and baught 3 Regular KTs, I could counter all 1000 points he spent with three veteran PIAT troops and a few diversionary rifle squads.

Of course, the guys who would be spending 1000 points on KTs are the same who would be demanding a flat, dry, clear map with no trees and lots of paved roads.

Joe

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

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

January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I have never seen worse arguments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have....yours and cav scouts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Anyone who says Germans are at a disadvantage has just never played a human in the game and is just plain ignorant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol, I like this.How do you know that anyone who say's this has never played a human.What do you base this on,mind reading?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And they also think that whining like a 4 year old with no logic more powerful than, "wahhhhhh my Germans should be all powerful"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't recall anyone using this logic.If you hadn't noticed some people here,including myself prefer to play as allies.They are arguing that the points allocation should be even,not that the germans should be all powerful.

PzKpfw 1 · January 18, 2001

So what was the purpose of makeing an apperently undocumented change in the points system?, did all the PBEM complaints about ppl usein German uber tanks finaly convince BTS attempt to police the games?.

Also have seen alot of talk about ahistorical etc, that doesn't realy apply here we are discussing a games QB generator which is not historicly attuned to begin with,the historical issue would concern the canned scens TO&E etc.

I am confused here as ppl point out that the German player can get an equal tank force by selecting armor battles, but what if he wants to play an CA or ME game etc? from what I see he is penalised unless he plays the Allied side.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 01-18-2001).]

Bigdog · January 18, 2001

Thank you Vanir. Well I missed this when it came out.

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

I think worlds of BTS and I believe this is the best game out there. But I stand by what I said, this give's the Allied force an unfair advantage in QBs Combined Arms, Meeting Engagement

1.By reducing Axis armor availability by 1/3 it will put's the Axis in a defensive posture from turn 1. and witch will make taking control of VLs a much tougher task.

2.Game play I know no one wants talk about it. But CM is a game so its is a big part of the appeal of the game. So when you have two guys that want to test there ability too lead there men in battle, shouldn't there be a least 1 balanced battle, that both opponents feel they have the same resource base to pull from? That battle is the Combined Arms, Meeting Engagement.

3. I believe these changes will create a less historical QB by force the Axis player into purchasing more 234/2 & 234/3 to try make up for the deficit in armor we all know using AT guns in offence's roll is difficult at best (a Meeting Engagement is a offensive battle is it not?) and lets not even talk about using a SPW 250/8 against a M4s. So we will start to see more gamy tactics witch is is not good for game.

I have to admit I am not a Gonad to me Big Gun Little Gun, Thin Armor Thick Armor, Fast Slow, it works for me. I am a better than average none gamy player that loves CM. I wish BTS would respond to these questions.

Big Dog

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

CavScout · January 18, 2001

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

Are you guys really that dense? If you want equal armor points for both sides, select armor force for both. Page 11 of this thread has the point break down for a 1000 point QB ME with armor force. Each side has the option of spending a 1000 points in armor if they want.

CavScout · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by 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?

I would simply ask why? If "equal points" are want you folks want, you should be arguing that the force pools be equal in ALL forms of force types, combined, armor, infantry and so on. Why is it you only want "equal" armor points in combined arms? Why aren't you arguing for equal infantry points in an armor force QB ME?

CavScout · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<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>

You do know you can get a "mixed unit" with the armor force selection, right? You could, if you wanted to, spend most, if not all, on armor but you don't have to. You can spend nearly half (in 1000 point battle) on infantry and nearly up to 20% in the other catagories. So again, you get what you want but you refuse to use the selection.

Hamstersss · January 18, 2001

I heard this was a real conversation. Mefinks not.

Dittohead · January 18, 2001

It appears much more real (284 vs 256) then the so called peng thread that you started.

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

The box is locked, its Robot Fighting time.

Tanklover MD · January 18, 2001

I noticed that their are a lot of new people posting so I thought it was OK for me to ask some questions.

First, if it impossible for the Germans to win, why doesn't BTS fix it. A couple of the same people who are posting on this thread said in another one that BTS was American lovers and I was wondering why would anyone buy the game? If it is impossible to win the game as Germans then how do you fix it? I have been playing a friend in Tampa for a month now an he won as the Germans, am I that bad of a player?

Next, why are the same number of points between infantry and tanks not equal? Is is because Germans had such bad infantry? How would you fix that?

Does BTS know how uneven the game is against the Germans, or do they just not care?

Finally, why are people against making the Quick Battles as historical as possible? The reason why I liked the game before I found out it was set up to screw the Germans was I felt like I was taking a class in World War Two playing it, very educational. I would think anything that made the Quick Battles more historical would love it.

BTW -- you are right about the armour setting, works find, and I am going to try to play armour versus an allied combined arms!

CavScout · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tanklover MD:

First, if it impossible for the Germans to win, why doesn't BTS fix it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it is not...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> A couple of the same people who are posting on this thread said in another one that BTS was American lovers and I was wondering why would anyone buy the game?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are usually the same people who believe German tanks were invincible and simply can't cope with the fact that they were good but certainly vulnerable.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If it is impossible to win the game as Germans then how do you fix it? I have been playing a friend in Tampa for a month now an he won as the Germans, am I that bad of a player?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Either side is generally only as good as the player. If someone can't win as the Germans it is likely they haven't figured out how to play the Germans.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Next, why are the same number of points between infantry and tanks not equal? Is is because Germans had such bad infantry? How would you fix that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look at all the QB ME games, the points for each pool (infantry, armor, etc) all are varied a bit. It has ntohing to do with "how good or bad" the German infantry was. Heck, the German infantry in generally better, IMO, when you need some anti-armor potential.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Does BTS know how uneven the game is against the Germans, or do they just not care?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The game isn't "against" the Germans.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Finally, why are people against making the Quick Battles as historical as possible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps because it is war game about a historical event, WWII.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The reason why I liked the game before I found out it was set up to screw the Germans was I felt like I was taking a class in World War Two playing it, very educational. I would think anything that made the Quick Battles more historical would love it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, so the problem is?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

BTW -- you are right about the armour setting, works find, and I am going to try to play armour versus an allied combined arms! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good luck! Just remember you'll need infantry!

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]

Polar · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>CavScout said: Good luck! Just remember you'll need infantry!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why are you misleading the poor guy Cav??? It's obvious from the arguments of people here that wasting ANY money on infantry would unbalance the game in favor of the guy that spent his money on armor.

Joe

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

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

Jeff Heidman · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Polar:

Why are you misleading the poor guy Cav??? It's obvious from the arguments of people here that wasting ANY money on infantry would unbalance the game in favor of the guy that spent his money on armor.

Joe

I can't believe CavScout would tell the guy to buy infantry. After all, he just spent 40 posts saying as how it does not matter what you buy, because the points are all the same and cannot possibly influence the outcome of the battle.

Jeff Heidman

jshandorf · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Please read some history. The Sherman was not made to be a tank killer. There was a reason the Americans made TDs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My god get a clue! I never said that a Shermans a Tank Killer. The Sherman WAS meant to engage other tanks when the situation occured but it was not made for the explicit purpose.

I have read plenty of history and have seen live interviews with Sherman TCs so don't tell me to read history. Why don't you learn put your brain in gear before you speak?

Jeff

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

I once killed a six pack just to watch it die.

CavScout · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Polar:

Why are you misleading the poor guy Cav??? It's obvious from the arguments of people here that wasting ANY money on infantry would unbalance the game in favor of the guy that spent his money on armor.

Ok, you are right! Infantry suck! Stay away from them if you have to play in woods or built-up areas. Their weakness is just magnified then!

jshandorf · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

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!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are such a think headed idiot Cav! When are you going to realize we are talking about a fair QB ME with Combined arms? NOT any combination of Armor and combined arms! God, you are hopeless.

Jeff

jshandorf · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is BS and you know it Slap! People should not have to make "agreements" and the such before any battle. THAT argument has been gone over before and I think it is the opinion of most people in this form that they would rather trust the constraints of the game than thier opponent. Get off this.

Jeff

Jeff Heidman · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tanklover MD:

I noticed that their are a lot of new people posting so I thought it was OK for me to ask some questions.

First, if it impossible for the Germans to win, why doesn't BTS fix it. A couple of the same people who are posting on this thread said in another one that BTS was American lovers and I was wondering why would anyone buy the game? If it is impossible to win the game as Germans then how do you fix it? I have been playing a friend in Tampa for a month now an he won as the Germans, am I that bad of a player?

Anyone who said it was impossible for the Germans to win is smoking something.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Next, why are the same number of points between infantry and tanks not equal? Is is because Germans had such bad infantry? How would you fix that?

it has nothing to do with whether they are equal. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. It depends on a host of other variables, like terrain, visibility, tactical situation, experience, etc.,etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Does BTS know how uneven the game is against the Germans, or do they just not care?

I'll take C, neither of the above.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Finally, why are people against making the Quick Battles as historical as possible?

The question is not whether or not to make QBs as historical as possible, the question is whether this change contributes to making QB more historical. It has been shown that it certainly does not.

For that matter, you would not want a perfectly historical QB, because it would be amazingly boring most of the time.

The average "historical" QB would have a Cm or Armored Allied force of 2000 points vs. a infantry Axis force of about 250.

Which is what is so funny about the people who claim this has anything to do with "history". Like it is more historical for the Germans to use Armour forces that largely did not exist.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

The reason why I liked the game before I found out it was set up to screw the Germans was I felt like I was taking a class in World War Two playing it, very educational. I would think anything that made the Quick Battles more historical would love it.

Then post a message asking for a 2000 point PBEM where you will play the Germans with 300 points. That will be nicely historical.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

BTW -- you are right about the armour setting, works find, and I am going to try to play armour versus an allied combined arms! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that is *real* historical!

Jeff Heidman

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

Polar · January 18, 2001

Yes Cav... you are "Think headed"... how dare you!

When will the rest of you learn that you can have a "combined arms" battle without it saying "combined arms" at the top of the QB screen?

Joe

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

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

jshandorf · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

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).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cav, I think everyone here see who the real fool is and that is you.

Only a fool would continue to cling to flimsy arguments and remarks you have made. You do nothing but try and piss people off by not seeing the obvious and sensible. I am not sure what your problems is, maybe you get off on this kind of stuff, and to that you are a very sad person indeed.

Jeff

Jeff Heidman · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Polar:

Yes Cav... you are "Think headed"... how dare you!

When will the rest of you learn that you can have a "combined arms" battle without it saying "combined arms" at the top of the QB screen?

Joe

Another red herring.

What if I want a combined arms battle with 30% armor and 70% infantry playing as the Germans?

Just like we could do prior to 1.1?

How is forcing the German player to take a predominantly armored force MORE historical?

Jeff Heidman

jshandorf · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Are you guys really that dense? If you want equal armor points for both sides, select armor force for both. Page 11 of this thread has the point break down for a 1000 point QB ME with armor force. Each side has the option of spending a 1000 points in armor if they want.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't believe you are this plain stupid. Don't you get we are talking about QB ME Combined ARMS?!!! People already think the armored battles are fair but the Combined Arms are not! THAT is the point! Please stay with it! Ahhhhhhh!

Jeff

Polar · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

Cav, I think everyone here see who the real fool is and that is you.

Only a fool would continue to cling to flimsy arguments and remarks you have made. You do nothing but try and piss people off by not seeing the obvious and sensible. I am not sure what your problems is, maybe you get off on this kind of stuff, and to that you are a very sad person indeed.

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually... I think most people are just getting pissed off because there is a solution present that they aren't willing to use.

It's like when users at my job complain that the printer 10 feet from there desk doesn't pirint letterhead, forcing them to walk an additional 5 feet to the one that does.

I wish more people would take the extra 10 seconds to remedy their perceived problems as opposed to burdening anyone who will listen with their complaints.

If you want want a field battle where the forces match what BTS believes to be as accurate diversity of units, everyone take combined arms.

If you want a straight up shoot out, both take armor battle and set purchase limits to the lowest of the two sides.

If you want an Armor column (either side) hitting entrenched infantry, give the attacker Armor, and the defense combined arms.

All it takes is a little hand shaking between the two sides before it starts... or is that too much to ask of you?

Joe

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

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

QB Armor pts CM1.1

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest JAZZA

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Announcements