Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: Unless of course, one were to claim that the Germans in general had more infantry And I am not so sure about that... Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Germans had more infantry because the US raised to many tank, antitank, and artillery units. To try and keep up with the demand for infantry the US disbanded heavy AA units and balloon units, gave cooks rifles, drew on black labour soldiers, and lots of other things to make up the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 An old idea certainly, but I again feel the urge to preach of the possibility for "limitless" combination. I'd really like to see it in CM2. With full freedom to spend it all on tanks, or all on infantry, you could go on searching for the ultimate combination. Probably finding it from somewhere very near to the current "combined". BTS could even label them: Armor, infantry, combined, gamey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 The fact of the matter IS that most players of CM are not die hard "tactical" grogs that can use infantry and AFVs to their uttermost capability. I would have to say that in 90% of the games I play against people when they are the Allies they MAX OUT on armor. I have noticed this trend and therefore I have had to adjust my strategy to counter this. That strategy would of coarse be maxing out MY armor and AT assests. When it comes down right to it either you are on the "historical" side of the fence or you are on the side of game balancing. Personally I would rather see game balancing then historical any day since it IS a game. Hell if ya want to be historical why would anyone want to play the Germans, since historically they lost all the time anyway. Game balancing is the most important issue here and I feel that it can be achieved through unit pricing and NOT through setting the point ceiling levels on a QB. Now if you could explain how this doesn't work I might changed my mind otherwise I see no other alternative that doesn't hurt the game more than it helps. Jeff ------------------ I once killed a six pack just to watch it die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: If you want armor battle, don't select combined arms as the force pool. It really is simple. In combined arms, the units are there to support each other. Would you agree that, on the whole, the Allied tanks were better in the infantry support role over the German ones? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whether I agreed or nt would be immaterial to thequestion of whether there is a good reason to restrict German armor purchases compared to Allied armor purchases, or vice versa. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you want armor vrs armor pick that as a game option. Don't pick combined arms and be upset when you have to mix your force up a bit. Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sigh. Where has someone complained they have to mix their force up? Nowhere. Where has someone said anyhting about armor vs. armor exclusively? Nowhere. You are arguing with some fictional person. The point is that there is no credible reason to have a difference in the armor percentage between Germans and Allies in a Quick Battle. Not a single person arguing that this change is good has given a single reason for why. They just keep arguing with people who are not even here about play balance, or other irrelevant point. Try to answer the question: What is the benefit to changing the force ratios in a totally non-historical Quick Battle such that each side does not have the option of choosing equal points in some given category? It is not more historical. It is not more balanving. It is not more interesting. What exactly is the reason? Is there one? BTS? Steve? Charles? Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: Unless of course, one were to claim that the Germans in general had more infantry And I am not so sure about that... Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not even then. this change does nothing to force the German player to purchase more infantry. It forces him to purchase less of things like Stug IIIs, PzIV, TDs, etc., and more things like Wirblewinds, Pumas, etc., etc. This change does not add a single ounce of historical reality to QBs. ALl it does is limit the two players differently, for no apparent purpose. It's a freaking QUICK BATTLE!!! If you want to play something historical, there are dozens of canned scenarios out there that do a much better job! For that matter, there is nothing stopping anyone under the old system from not spending all those points on armor to begin with, if they want to have a more historical force. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 How do we even know this was an intentional change? Was it mentioned in the README? I do not recall seeing it. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: Unless of course, one were to claim that the Germans in general had more infantry And I am not so sure about that... Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well... if you were to go back it time and use the BTS number values to evaluate combat effectivesness.. and then try and pick untits that best represent availability on both sides, then yes, the Germans would have more infantry. (*shew!!*) Or, to put it more simply.. the ratio or armor to men was less for the Germans than it was for the Allies... probably because the US built their tanks primarily for troop support (right or wrong) and Germans made tanks that were cool "mine's bigger" tank killers. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Also... when someone masters the skill of commanding infantry, they care much less about the number of tanks on the other side of the map. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 I’m with you Jeff H! Whether the point distribution works or not in its current shape is completely secondary to the question of why this artificial constraint is there to begin with. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by engy: Cav... I'm not talking about vaccuums! 100 points advantage in infantry is not the same as 100 points in armor. Oftentimes, with armor, 1 shot=kill, and my armor points are gone. Not just shaken/cautious/half-strength, but gone. However, it's very rare (although it has almost happened), that I lose an entire platoon (~ 100 pts, roughly) in one shot to another platoon. So, pretend for a moment that the US does gain an advantage from this 100 point armor differential. As US, the infantry battle is not *immediately* effected by being 100 pts down (but it would show after a number of turns), but as the German, once I come face to face with 100 extra points of US armor, I can be finished in a moment. Once that happens, the German 100 point infantry advantage is completely offset by US Direct Fire HE. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If the German knows he has an advantage in infantry assest and a disadvantage in armor assests, why is he engaging with the armor first? You don't have to lead with armor, you do know that? Right? If a player who insists on playing the Germans, as you could play the Allies in an ME, you can insist on a ARMOR force mix over a combined arms. Why pick combined arms when all you want is tanks? Seems people are complaining when there seems to be a rather simple fix. 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] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: Unless of course, one were to claim that the Germans in general had more infantry And I am not so sure about that... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Germans were certainly more ikely to have infantry as part of their force than other components. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bigdog: Cav That's the point the QB Combined Arms, Meeting Engagement is the most balanced battle in CM. Perfect for a mano o mano battle. So both sides should have the same points per category not a 3 to2 point bump for allied armor. Big Dog<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why? Why isn't a QB armor, meeting engagment the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigdog Posted January 17, 2001 Author Share Posted January 17, 2001 That's what talking about thanks Jeff, It hurts the game more than it helps. Odd mixes of forces is for caned battles. Not QBs Combined Arms Meeting Engagements. If the point value is the same its up the each player how he spends them. Not starting out how to counter the handy cap you have been stuck with. It simple really. BTS? Big Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: If the German knows he has an advantage in infantry assets and a disadvantage in armor assets, why is he engaging with the armor first? You don't have to lead with armor, you do know that? Right? If a player who insists on playing the Germans, as you could play the Allies in an ME, you can insist on a ARMOR force mix over a combined arms. Why pick combined arms when all you want is tanks? Seems people are complaining when there seems to be a rather simple fix. Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow, ya know. I don't agree with Jeff H. much around here but I do agree with him when it comes to his opinion of you. The point caps on QBs have NOTHING to do with the tactics you employ. Telling people to "play the game" different is no solution to what we are talking about nor does it have ANY relevance here. "If a player who insists on playing the Germans, as you could play the Allies in an ME, you can insist on a ARMOR force mix over a combined arms. Why pick combined arms when all you want is tanks? Seems people are complaining when there seems to be a rather simple fix." And what are you sniffing to come up with a comment like this? My god are you this daft? Can't you just address the issue at hand without bringing in totally pointless comments such as this? Here is a shocker, brace yourself, but some people LIKE to play the Germans. Oh but wait, Cavscout says that if I don't like the lower cap on my armor I have to play the Americans. What? Give me a break. Also the fact that the German player can pick armored is totally irrelevant here. We are talking about the point limits on Combined Arms QBs not armored. So even saying this is so off base and topic that I won't even go there. Jeff ------------------ I once killed a six pack just to watch it die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: If the German knows he has an advantage in infantry assest and a disadvantage in armor assests, why is he engaging with the armor first? You don't have to lead with armor, you do know that? Right? If a player who insists on playing the Germans, as you could play the Allies in an ME, you can insist on a ARMOR force mix over a combined arms. Why pick combined arms when all you want is tanks? Seems people are complaining when there seems to be a rather simple fix. Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What in his post, or in anyones post on this thread, lead you to beleive that he was saying he wants an all-armor force? What does this have to do with the topic? The topic (in case you forgot) is the new QB MEETING ENGAGEMENT change to the German force structure. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: The Germans were certainly more ikely to have infantry as part of their force than other components.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So were the Americans. And British. And French. And Poles. Maybe we should reduce the German ratio of armor to only 5%. Or 2%. Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, since the change in ME QB force structures does not do anything to make it more likely that the Germans would have a force closer to a completely undefined "historical" composition. Not to mention the fact that there is no reason to think that it would be desireable anyway, since we have already determined that historical force composition is not desired in QBs all the time. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bigdog: That's what talking about thanks Jeff, It hurts the game more than it helps. Odd mixes of forces is for caned battles. Not QBs Combined Arms Meeting Engagements. If the point value is the same its up the each player how he spends them. Not starting out how to counter the handy cap you have been stuck with. It simple really. BTS? Big Dog <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually Big Dog, we have yet to establish a real handicap at all, and it does simulate the true situation at the front. Plus, if you only play Germans, and if you are notr comfortable with the added historical dimension, do not play combined arms, ask the US player to play combined arms while you play German, or even ask the US player for a 10 or 25 percent advantage. Or, you can study ScoutPL's paper on infantry attacks, which really do help people sharpen their skills. At the same time, we are not discussing the disadvantage, historical in nature, that this places the Allies in. When I played allies, I always max out infantry and almost never max out anything else. A large force of infantry with the right support is the key to most victories, especially since US infantry are at a disadvantage in 1-1 slug fests. Now I have less infantry to win the battle. Of course, this was realistic. What is funny though is that people will argue for hundreds of posts about a 1% change in penetration value -- like was happening with the 76mm for a while, but then hate it when historical prinicpals are applied to other units. Again I think it is caused by the misconception that this is a tank game. It is not, it is an infantry game which happens to have tanks for historical accuracy. Modding and ballistics aside, it is the infantry which take and hold objectives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigdog Posted January 17, 2001 Author Share Posted January 17, 2001 Cav No its not Combined Arms give's a well balanced force not 1 type of force can win you the engagement. Armor you can spend all your points on AFV. Even when I play Armor-o-Armor I have an agreement with my opponent that we spend no more than 2/3 of points on armor so that there is some support to go with the armor. Combined Arms is about balance not handy capping either side. Big Dog [This message has been edited by Bigdog (edited 01-17-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Whether I agreed or nt would be immaterial to thequestion of whether there is a good reason to restrict German armor purchases compared to Allied armor purchases, or vice versa.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No... an answer from you probably would just be "immaterial"... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sigh. Where has someone complained they have to mix their force up? Nowhere. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? One must wonder why it has focused on the Germans defict in armor points and not the obviously unfair (:rolleyes advantage the Germans have in infantry and vehicle support. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Where has someone said anyhting about armor vs. armor exclusively? Nowhere. You are arguing with some fictional person. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hardly. You'll note that ALL of the crys of "unfairness" have focused primarily mor points. Nothing else. All the examples of the new "unfair" ME have focused primarily on armor purchases. Seems we have only been hearing "I only get one tank and he gets two..." It seems the only thing that is "fictional" is your thoughts on the direction of this discussion. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The point is that there is no credible reason to have a difference in the armor percentage between Germans and Allies in a Quick Battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And no "credible" reason has been given as to why it should be the same between them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Not a single person arguing that this change is good has given a single reason for why. They just keep arguing with people who are not even here about play balance, or other irrelevant point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How about showing why the change is bad? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Try to answer the question: What is the benefit to changing the force ratios in a totally non-historical Quick Battle such that each side does not have the option of choosing equal points in some given category? It is not more historical.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It isn't? So on average, the Germans would have the exact same amount of armor available that the Allies would? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It is not more balanving.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It really effects the balance in now way as both sides still have the exact same points. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It is not more interesting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? I have to disagree. It is much more interesting as your approach to each QB is different depending on the side you are each time. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What exactly is the reason? Is there one? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What are the reasons against it? The only reason given so far is that the Gemran players want more armor. Knowing this, they can simply choose armor QB ME and be 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 01-17-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: Wow, ya know. I don't agree with Jeff H. much around here but I do agree with him when it comes to his opinion of you. The point caps on QBs have NOTHING to do with the tactics you employ. Telling people to "play the game" different is no solution to what we are talking about nor does it have ANY relevance here. "If a player who insists on playing the Germans, as you could play the Allies in an ME, you can insist on a ARMOR force mix over a combined arms. Why pick combined arms when all you want is tanks? Seems people are complaining when there seems to be a rather simple fix." And what are you sniffing to come up with a comment like this? My god are you this daft? Can't you just address the issue at hand without bringing in totally pointless comments such as this? Here is a shocker, brace yourself, but some people LIKE to play the Germans. Oh but wait, Cavscout says that if I don't like the lower cap on my armor I have to play the Americans. What? Give me a break. Also the fact that the German player can pick armored is totally irrelevant here. We are talking about the point limits on Combined Arms QBs not armored. So even saying this is so off base and topic that I won't even go there. Jeff <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey Jeff, It is not a either play US or not thing. Just ask the US player to let you play armour while they play combined. Then the issue is moot, and the game is still balanced since it is about tactics. The only way it would not be balanced is if the attacker were forced to play infantry, which is much more difficult except in the most built up terrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigdog Posted January 17, 2001 Author Share Posted January 17, 2001 I am sorry it is about handy capping, its not about balance. You do a setup in QB and tell its fair Big Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Actually Big Dog, we have yet to establish a real handicap at all, and it does simulate the true situation at the front.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would like to see the evidence that at the front it was NEVER the case that the Germans at most had a 2:3 disadvantage in combat power in armor in an otherwise combined arms force. QB are inherently ahistorical. This change, if anything, makes it even more so, not less. There is no reason to think that those 100 points taken away from armor are going to be spent on infantry, much less historically relevant infantry. even if they did spend those points on infantry, they can spend them on Mountain troops, Sturmgruppes, or any number of other completely ahistorical forces. But they will likely take those 100 points and instead of buying a StugIII (very historical), they might get a Whirblewind or Puma (very ahistorical). I agree that this is not unbalancing, but I think balance is not the point at all. This change has no impact on how historical a given QB force selection will be! I can come up with historical and non-historical forces with or without the change. The only thing this does is make the compsition of a supposedly combined-arms force different for the two sides. Nothing more, and nothing less. I ask again: Why is that desireable? Why is CM a better game because the Allies can get 50% more points worth of armor in a QB Meeting Engagement? Jff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bigdog: That's what talking about thanks Jeff, It hurts the game more than it helps. Odd mixes of forces is for caned battles. Not QBs Combined Arms Meeting Engagements. If the point value is the same its up the each player how he spends them. Not starting out how to counter the handy cap you have been stuck with. It simple really. BTS? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How does it hurt the game? And since when is a 1000 points vrs a 1000 points a "handy cap"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Gee, Cavscout... Here is a credible reason for keeping the point caps the same, GAME BALANCING! Geezus, don't you realize what we are talking about? 1. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT HISTORICAL AVAILABILITY. I think Steve has said more then once the point system is NOT based of of historical availability figures. Nuff' said there. Lets hear no more of that. 2. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ARMORED SELECTION. We ARE talking about a Combined Arms meeting engagement and whether it is BALANCED! Period! Keeeeeerist! 3. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT TACTICS OR WHETHER INFANTRY IS BETTER OR WORSE THEN ARMOR. We are talking about the point cap on armor and whether it disadvantages the German player or advantages the American player. That's it folks! That the topic! So far from Slap and Cav I have heard NOTHING in relevance to this that would explain how it is game balancing. Here is MY point and try and refute it without talking about the other nonsense (See 1,2,3 above) Steve and Charles have assigned points to armored units based off a "Performance" value of the vehicle in battle. Therefore for all things being equal (AND IF YOU ACCEPT THE POINT ASSIGNMENTS, which I do) then 500 points of German armor is EQUAL TO 500 point of American armor. SO if you limit the armor points in a ME Combined arms than the German player is at disadvantage armor wise. There ya go. That is the argument. That is my REASON Cavscout. And it is damn good one since it's reasoning is based of the reasoning of Steve and Charles. Now PLEASE actually address the issue and try and prove why my argument is wrong and don't talk about 1,2 or 3! They have nothing to do with my argument. Jeff ------------------ I once killed a six pack just to watch it die. [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 01-17-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bigdog: I am sorry it is about handy capping, its not about balance. You do a setup in QB and tell its fair Big Dog<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Part of this is a misconception of what the game is about, and what a QB is about. A QB is an attempt to portray a possible fight in a fictional space. Possible in that the forces are realistic and the task set for them not unusual (afterall, taking the next set of hills/town/kilometer was the usually objective). This is modified by encouraging and or forcing players to make certain choices in picking units. No one complains that the Germans have a dozen different company types each good for a set of tasks, compared to the limited choice of Allied units in the pool even though it restricts choice. They should not either, it is a good reflection of reality. No is let pick a single squad and assign them to leaders whilley nilly, and if you want that Battalion, you have to take all those support weapons you may not want. Here, we have another case of trying to make QBs more realistic without making them less even. Historically, Germans fielded less tanks than the Allies. Any one who wants to argue this can pit their figures against my figures of tanks at the pront / produced / delivered. There were more Shermans in Europe Jan. 1944 than all other German tanks combined. US infantry units on the attack were much more likely to get some tanks from attached battalions. If you want to, you can simulate a German Panzer unit hitting a US infantry unit, or a German Mech units tangling with a US infantry unit. Just choose the proper controls on the QB and you have it. Or, if we had a bunch of allied players bitching, we could get the Volkstrum thrown out, the KT dumped, and lots of other changings cause, hell with historical accuracy, we want the game to be fair to players of all skill levels even if they do not know how to use or fight certain units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts