QB Armor pts CM1.1

[CavScout]

<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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh well, opinons are like assholes, everyone has one, and sometimes those with the opinions are assholes. I don't get to worked-up about it.

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

The point caps on QBs have NOTHING to do with the tactics you employ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What?!?!?!

You telling me the force at hand has no impact on the tactics you employ? Christ, if that is your thinking no wonder you hate the change. You can't adapt. The point "caps" affect the forces you can pick and should certainly affect the tactics you employ. I guess Slap was right... people only know how to play tanks...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Telling people to "play the game" different is no solution to what we are talking about nor does it have ANY relevance here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

False. The COMPLAINTS have been about not having EQUAL (now pay attention)ARMOR(make sure you read that) points in QB combined arms, ME. If EQUAL armor is what is wanted, go with QB armor MEs!

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but if you want more armor on your side, do that (play American) or play an armor ME!

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

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What we have is German players crying for more armor. They can get that with a armor foce selection. You do know you can do a MEETING ENGAGEMENT with something other than combined arms? Right?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, the majority of actions were US combined arms versus German Infantry only. German tanks, when they showed up, were often outnumbered (of course I am basing my arguments here on Mellenthin, Guderian, Von Manstien and Von Luck, who are all generals and may have all gottem together after the war and lied about all this).

The game allows you to easily simulate the other common situations. A German armoured column hitting a US combined arms force, etc are all part of the choices.

[JoePrivate]

Well this issue looks like it will go round and round until BTS steps in. It was my understanding the points allocation was adjusted for *balance* not for a historical reason. Other things changed were the Attacker/Defender ratio and points allowed in Support. The side playing the Germans has a plethora of AT/Inf support vehicles in the Vehicle category to complement the armour assets, the Allied side doesn't. The closest thing the US has, the M8 HMC, is in the Armour section. Now it could be argued that a reduction in German vehicle points or moving an AFV like the M8 HMC to the Vehicle section would have been possibly a better solution, I don't know, but definitely something was slightly off before 1.1 when selecting an equal point Allied force in comparison to the German one. Just my thoughts...

[CavScout]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What handicap? Both sides in a combined arms game have the SAME total points? The Allies have NO more points than the Germans. None. Zippo.

[Slapdragon]

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

No, but if you want more armor on your side, do that (play American) or play an armor ME!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cav, I don't think his comments were serious from the way he started the post. He was just trying to get you riled up. Smile and breath. Your argument is strong if this does not devolve into a hitting fest.

[CavScout]

<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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have. It IS fair. Both sides have the same number of points. Page 3 of this discussion has some screen shots from a 1000 pt. game.

[Slapdragon]

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

Well this issue looks like it will go round and round until BTS steps in. It was my understanding the points allocation was adjusted for *balance* not for a historical reason. Other things changed were the Attacker/Defender ratio and points allowed in Support. The side playing the Germans has a plethora of AT/Inf support vehicles in the Vehicle category to complement the armour assets, the Allied side doesn't. The closest thing the US has, the M8 HMC, is in the Armour section. Now it could be argued that a reduction in German vehicle points or moving an AFV like the M8 HMC to the Vehicle section would have been possibly a better solution, I don't know, but definitely something was slightly off before 1.1 when selecting an equal point Allied force in comparison to the German one. Just my thoughts...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is very possible that it was to balance AT ability rather than to be historical, but I think it had a historical result, without altering balance, or perhaps altering it a little bit more even, and then mostly for attack scenarios.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

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!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it has no impact on play balance or historical accuracy, why are you bitching?

Seems to me that if the changes have had no effect on play balance, you shouldn't care.

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]

[jshandorf]

Are you kidding me?

Cavscout is talking about tactics and historical.. blah blah blah... That is not what is being discussed here.

What is being discussed is whether the battles is BALANCED with the current armored point difference. That is the topic. So far I have seen nothing as to support it is from either Slap or Cavscout.

I have given an argument based off of what Steve and Charles have stated time and time again but no one has refuted that.

Therefore I think I have the strong argument and that both of you guys just hate admitting your wrong.

Either prove my reasoning unsound or admit your wrong.

Jeff

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

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

[CavScout]

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

Gee, Cavscout...

Here is a credible reason for keeping the point caps the same, GAME BALANCING!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even Mr. Heidman agrees that it is not unbalanced with the point distribution. I don't see the imbalance either.

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

Geezus, don't you realize what we are talking about?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is "we"?

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

2. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ARMORED SELECTION.

We ARE talking about a Combined Arms meeting engagement and whether it is BALANCED! Period! Keeeeeerist!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you saying it is not balanced now? Care to show how?

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We most certainly are talking about whether infantry is better or worse. You are crying about game balance. You have decried that moving a 100 points (in a 1000 point game for example) from armor to infantry is some how a huge blow to game balance. By doing so you are saying infantry points, in an equal amount, are not worth the same as armor points.

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is really simple then. If you agree with BTS's assigned of point values based on performance, which you do "AND IF YOU ACCEPT THE POINT ASSIGNMENTS, which I do", then you accept that 1000 points is 1000 points whether in infantry or armor. What exactly is your problem then?

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]

[Slapdragon]

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

Are you kidding me?

Cavscout is talking about tactics and historical.. blah blah blah... That is not what is being discussed here.

What is being discussed is whether the battles is BALANCED with the current armored point difference. That is the topic. So far I have seen nothing as to support it is from either Slap or Cavscout.

I have given an argument based off of what Steve and Charles have stated time and time again but no one has refuted that.

Therefore I think I have the strong argument and that both of you guys just hate admitting your wrong.

Either prove my reasoning unsound or admit your wrong.

Jeff

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, you need to just reread all of the comments (hard to do when they come so fast).

1) Play balance is not changed. (I think it may be a little harder for less experienced players to succeed in a few situations but that is it). The better antitank ability of German tanks and the abundant German AT weapons, plus the anti-infantry capability of the MG42 means the Germans still have a winning combination. Especially if the US player spends all their money for big tanks.

2) There are historical reasons why this works, and follows BTS method of making QBs as historical as possible (or else why restrict infantry purchases to units with a historical basis).

Nothing anyone has said has really made any sort of argument against the new arrangement, and most of the comments against it have been that it is unfair to the Germans.

In reality, it would be nice for someone to come up with an argument against it, rather than saying that BTS has to prove why they did it.

[CavScout]

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

Either prove my reasoning unsound or admit your wrong.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not simply prove you are right? It is simple to demand that someone "prove" the negative.

Cav

-----

"I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me."

-Dave Barry

[CavScout]

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

In reality, it would be nice for someone to come up with an argument against it, rather than saying that BTS has to prove why they did it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be nice.... but it seems that it will not be the cas[e] here...

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

[engy]

<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>

Wait one second. Please show me, in my previous post, where I said either of the following...

1. As German, I'm leading with my armor.

2. I want only tanks.

3. I am biased toward choosing Germans in QB's.

You cannot, because I did not say any of them. I have tried to make the point that the artificial transfer of points from Armor to Vehicles restricts a German player from purchasing a historical force mix in which his armored force would be comparable to the opposing Allied armored force (and, I know that others here are campaigning because of the play balancing issues strictly pt. vs. pt., but I am not going there.)

And a point by point rebuttal to the above...

1. For you to assume that I'm in this argument only because I am ignorant of combined armed tactics shows an extremely poor grasp of the subject, or a trite reading of the posts so far.

2. I have no desire for "only" tanks. I frequently play Mechanized/Infantry battles, and often spend my Combined Arms armor points on "support" units (Priest, Wespe, etc).

3. I play Allies *at least* 50% of the time.

So, instead of making accusations based on assumptions you have made, get back to the point...the transfer of points to Vehicles shifts the German purchase *away* from what was historically in the field.

[JoePrivate]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In reality, it would be nice for someone to come up with an argument against it, rather than saying that BTS has to prove why they did it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, probably because some people complained that it wasn't balanced for the Allies before, that the Germans had an 'unfair' advantage. Funny, the arguments for and against were the same then as they are now, just with the roles reversed.

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

[jshandorf]

A 1000 points is NOT equal to 1000 points when you are forced to spend them differently. What is so hard in realizing that?

We are talking JUST about the difference in the armored points in a ME QB. Why must you bring in other points that have no relevance to this?

If you think 400 points of German armor is equal to 600 points of American then setup a game with that amount of armor and play it. I think you will be quite disappointed with the results.

Both players should have the chance to spend the equal amount of points for each type of unit to make things equal and balanced. Otherwise they are not. It is just that simple.

If I am FORCED to choose a lesser amount of armor then my opponent then it is unequal. Period. How can it not be? Oh wait.. I forgot. Cavscout is always right and if it weren't so the universe would collapse in on itself. Hmmm...

So far you have NOT addressed my argument. You do it by attacking some other argument that I didn't make. Until you can actually take my argument and show the flaw in it then I guess I am not wrong and therefore you are.

Jeff

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

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

[Slapdragon]

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

A 1000 points is NOT equal to 1000 points when you are forced to spend them differently. What is so hard in realizing that?

We are talking JUST about the difference in the armored points in a ME QB. Why must you bring in other points that have no relevance to this?

If you think 400 points of German armor is equal to 600 points of American then setup a game with that amount of armor and play it. I think you will be quite disappointed with the results.

Both players should have the chance to spend the equal amount of points for each type of unit to make things equal and balanced. Otherwise they are not. It is just that simple.

If I am FORCED to choose a lesser amount of armor then my opponent then it is unequal. Period. How can it not be? Oh wait.. I forgot. Cavscout is always right and if it weren't so the universe would collapse in on itself. Hmmm...

So far you have NOT addressed my argument. You do it by attacking some other argument that I didn't make. Until you can actually take my argument and show the flaw in it then I guess I am not wrong and therefore you are.

Jeff

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, you need to read this very carefully, since it is a repeat, and answers your question.

QBs are not open format. Restrictions are designed for historical and not game play reasons. Some people did use some of those restrictions looking for an advantage, and sometimes found one.

Any restriction at all is designed to keep players from creating unrealistic historical forces. That is why you buy a platoon instead of individual pieces like Squad Leader. This forces your units to look more realistic even if you don't want all those damn 60mm mortars in the US battalion or you want your paratroopers to have Pupchens or 57mm ATs in place of Zooks or whatever.

Placing the restriction on German tanks is not a big deal -- the Germans still come out with better AT performance point for point than the Allies, and better AT performance and anti infantry performance in the infantry point for point. The only thing it does is create a situation were the Allies will look more to firepower and the Germans to adhoc combined arms use.

AND, if you are someone who is not very good at infantry, and does not know how to use some of the other German hidden treasures, then you can choose to play an armoured force which lets you give everything to your armour.

The only other solution is to create an ahistorical setting that lets you pretty much buy what you want regardless, from individual infantry squads to KTs and be done with attempts to include any historical feel in QBs.

[Slapdragon]

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

Hehe, because a lot of people complained that it wasn't balanced for the Allies before, that the Germans had an 'unfair' advantage. Funny, the arguments for and against were the same then as they are now, just with the roles reversed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Out of interest, can you post the URL of this thread?

[Vanir]

Lots of people complaining about Germans getting shafted on armor. Surprisingly (or not...) no one complaining about Allied getting shafted on infantry. With the Germans access to a huge variety of infantry tailored to every tactical situation this should be a big advantage to the German player, assuming he knows how to use infantry... Just reinforces that tread-heads gravitate toward Germans.

But as much as I would like to agree with Slappy and Cav, I can't. At least not 100%. The problem is that the points taken from the German armor category don't all go to infantry. Only half do. The other half go to vehicles.

And there's the problem. On the CM combined arms battlefield, wheeled vehicles (like 234/1-3) rely on their speed for survival. But in 1.1 BTS has greatly slowed down wheeled vehicle's off-road speed. But they did not reduce their point costs accordingly (at least I don't think they did. I could be wrong there). Therefore, I think wheeled vehicles are a bit overpriced right now. So while 100 pts in infantry is still worth 100 in armor, I'm not so sure about 100 in vehicles.

Also, some people max out infantry, some max out arty, some max out armor. But no one maxes out vehicles. So that 100 extra points in German vehicles is really wasted.

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

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

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

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

[Slyss]

I'm with Jeff on this stuff. In fact Jeff, read my postings and I think that we are definately right.

Most everyone is missing the point altogether. Duh...

When I'm german, I don't buy all KTs. I'm a player that goes for quantity, not quality. In the last battle, I just had StuHs. Hmm.

The whole complaint is WHY are my points restricted with no reason FOR a battle that NEVER happened.

So someone please tell me why the allied motivated players are so scared about it going back to the even point total way. Its not about whos gonna win or lose, its a question about the godamn point change and the reasoning for it.

I bet anything that the allied players would be crying FOUL if this was changed back.

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

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

[CavScout]

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

A 1000 points is NOT equal to 1000 points when you are forced to spend them differently. What is so hard in realizing that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because I don't share you view that it is "unfair".

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

We are talking JUST about the difference in the armored points in a ME QB. Why must you bring in other points that have no relevance to this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but your self-imposed restriction for this debate is your own problem. You focus simply on the armor points and cry out in pain as you feel the Germans are being handicapped. You see this "handicapped" because you refuse to see the "handicapped" placed on the Allied side in the area of infantry and vehicles. You make it seem that it will only be tank on tank.

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

If you think 400 points of German armor is equal to 600 points of American then setup a game with that amount of armor and play it. I think you will be quite disappointed with the results.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again soley focused on armor. Why are you even bothering with combined arms? Just play armor.

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

Both players should have the chance to spend the equal amount of points for each type of unit to make things equal and balanced. Otherwise they are not. It is just that simple.

If I am FORCED to choose a lesser amount of armor then my opponent then it is unequal. Period. How can it not be? Oh wait.. I forgot. Cavscout is always right and if it weren't so the universe would collapse in on itself. Hmmm...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is the same true for the American who has been "forced" to buy a lesser amount of infantry?

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

So far you have NOT addressed my argument.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was addressed... it made it to the crapper, where it belonged.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You do it by attacking some other argument that I didn't make. Until you can actually take my argument and show the flaw in it then I guess I am not wrong and therefore you are.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The easy way to see the "flaw" in your argument would be for you to find the nearest mirror.

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]

[jshandorf]

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

Jeff, you need to read this very carefully, since it is a repeat, and answers your question.

QBs are not open format. Restrictions are designed for historical and not game play reasons. Some people did use some of those restrictions looking for an advantage, and sometimes found one.

Any restriction at all is designed to keep players from creating unrealistic historical forces. That is why you buy a platoon instead of individual pieces like Squad Leader. This forces your units to look more realistic even if you don't want all those damn 60mm mortars in the US battalion or you want your paratroopers to have Pupchens or 57mm ATs in place of Zooks or whatever.

Placing the restriction on German tanks is not a big deal -- the Germans still come out with better AT performance point for point than the Allies, and better AT performance and anti infantry performance in the infantry point for point. The only thing it does is create a situation were the Allies will look more to firepower and the Germans to adhoc combined arms use.

AND, if you are someone who is not very good at infantry, and does not know how to use some of the other German hidden treasures, then you can choose to play an armoured force which lets you give everything to your armour.

The only other solution is to create an ahistorical setting that lets you pretty much buy what you want regardless, from individual infantry squads to KTs and be done with attempts to include any historical feel in QBs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As others have pointed out if you want HISTORICAL play a canned scenario.

Steve has said time and time again that MEs are not very historical and that they have never really tried to make them that way. It is a type of battle that you can play against another person for fun.

You seem to think MEs are suppose to be some Historical representation of something, but that is not true.

Unit pricing is NOT based off of historical availability and thus the point layout for certain battles is not either. In fact I don't think I have ever heard this until you guys started talking about it.

You HAVE NOT refuted my argument. You are only trying to explain something I am not arguing about. I don't care why you think the numbers are different. I am telling you that in doing it this way, with the way the point systems is laid out, that ME QBs are unbalanced.

And DON'T tell me to play an armored force setting. If I want to play a combined arms then, dammit, I will play it and I expect it to be balanced so that it is FUN! I don't give a rats ass about historical. I want to have fun playing CM. If the whole thing was historical NO ONE would play the Germans because ya know.. they lost the war and thus they lost the majority of the engagements during the Summer of '44 to the spring of '45.

What fun would THAT be? The points and the battles should be laid out so that they are balanced and therefore FUN to play, not so that you are sticking by some historical accuracy of the force strengths.

As it has been said before. If you want historical battles then play the scenarios. Hell, in fact STEVE has said this himself before. In fact I think EVERYONE here in the forum except for Slap and Cav realize that QBs are not historical, but you two just don't seem to get it.

Jeff

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

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

[Slapdragon]

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

Lots of people complaining about Germans getting shafted on armor. Surprisingly (or not...) no one complaining about Allied getting shafted on infantry. With the Germans access to a huge variety of infantry tailored to every tactical situation this should be a big advantage to the German player, assuming he knows how to use infantry... Just reinforces that tread-heads gravitate toward Germans.

But as much as I would like to agree with Slappy and Cav, I can't. At least not 100%. The problem is that the points taken from the German armor category don't all go to infantry. Only half do. The other half go to vehicles.

And there's the problem. On the CM combined arms battlefield, wheeled vehicles (like 234/1-3) rely on their speed for survival. But in 1.1 BTS has greatly slowed down wheeled vehicle's off-road speed. But they did not reduce their point costs accordingly. Therefore, I think wheeled vehicles are a bit overpriced right now. So while 100 pts in infantry is still worth 100 in armor, I'm not so sure about 100 in vehicles.

Also, some people max out infantry, some max out arty, some max out armor. But no one maxes out vehicles. So that 100 extra points in German vehicles is really wasted.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Put this way, I agree with Vanir's argument. Perhaps point values for vehicles should be tweeked down a bit with the loss of off road, AND the 100 points dumped into infantry.

[Panther131]

I completley agree with jshandorf here. Aint that a hoot

Ok...lets review this quite simply:

If one chooses the allies, they get to use more armor and less infantry.

If one chooses axis, one gets less armor and more infantry.

Now before I go into it any further, I would like to say that if one chooses to play allied he is forced to use a more armor centric pool then infantry becouse the points are set up that way. This in turn makes the allied play a more armored tactical approach. There is no way around this. It the way it is set up

Now If I choose axis, I am forced to not by as many tanks but am allowed to have more infantry. So as an axis player I am forced to use certain tactics to win. Do you see were this is going.

You cant choose one side and play to your liking becouse to the way the points are allocated.

So what happens is (according to cavscout ) is if you want to play a more armored QB ME play as allied. If you want to play a more infantry centric QB ME play as axis. Geee. Sighn me up

Now to me, this does not give the same oppertunities to both sides and is unfair. Why should I be forced to play a with a different style becouse the side I pick is set up that way in points, in the same battle?