QB Armor pts CM1.1

[Slapdragon]

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

The funny thing is Slap, that I could take your post, reverse the names, and it would sound exactly correct.

Funny how when I defend the game I am intelligent, but when I do not, I am a troll. Curious.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In both cases I was accepted the game as it stands without proof it should be changed. In the 76mm thread you support the game, in this thread you are against it. Mostly depends on if the thread is pro or anti German. I do not believe you are in that group, and in fact in off list discussions the best thing that ever happen to the pro allied group (the couple that only play allies ) was you getting making attacks in what was otherwise a scholarly discussion on the game.

CavScout was wrong to bait the troll, I was wrong to respon when you went wrong, and you are wrong for being a troll. Calling people names in anything other than fun is no good. So run off to Usenet and tell everyone how bad everyone is to you and how (boo hoo) we want you to actually come up with some data.

[Philistine]

Before this thread gets locked up....

I've been out of touch w/ CM for about a month or so due to life, but in checking in occassionally, I had no idea this change was even being considered. Are there other threads discussing the merits of such a change before it happened?

Without getting too deeply into the historical versus playbalance issues--the Combined Arms Meeting Engagement WAS my standard, and I would say, the general standard, for a quick, balanced game with a stranger. Pick a date, random everything that can be, moderate everthing that can't, and you're off.

Now, I fear there will be much more "negotiations" about sides and conditions. I haven't played it like this enough or thought about it enough to have a reasoned opinion yet (although it doesn't really appear that is necessarily needed... ), but I dislike the fact that the "easy" balanced type of game has been changed.

--Philistine

[Slapdragon]

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

This does not work in this situation.

What is being discussed *IS* a paradigm shift. The game did work one way, and now it works in a different way. Some people are curious as to why that change was made, and what the justification is for it.

The burden of proof cuts both ways.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The current paradigm is the game as written. The new paradigm is the game as it would appear if changed. Evidence must be presented to change the paradigm. Why, because someone will have to code it, and you need to convince them to do it. The someone is Charles and Steve. So the burden of proof is always on the person who wants the game changed, not on the person who wants to keep it the same. The only thing they have to do it reply to the people who want the paradigm shifted and knock down those arguements.

[Slapdragon]

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

Before this thread gets locked up....

I've been out of touch w/ CM for about a month or so due to life, but in checking in occassionally, I had no idea this change was even being considered. Are there other threads discussing the merits of such a change before it happened?

Without getting too deeply into the historical versus playbalance issues--the Combined Arms Meeting Engagement WAS my standard, and I would say, the general standard, for a quick, balanced game with a stranger. Pick a date, random everything that can be, moderate everthing that can't, and you're off.

Now, I fear there will be much more "negotiations" about sides and conditions. I haven't played it like this enough or thought about it enough to have a reasoned opinion yet (although it doesn't really appear that is necessarily needed... ), but I dislike the fact that the "easy" balanced type of game has been changed.

--Philistine<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not think their will be that many negotiations. The Germans still look very good to me with the settings. The only negotiations will be for the people who are no good with infantry, or who are the big tank down the center of the road types.

Like I said, I just won Germans last night and I did not even know the change had happened because I never spend all my armour points anyway.

[CavScout]

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

They could say that but I would then ask what else is similar?

Tanks are tanks are tanks. They may be different in design but conceptually they are equal in the purpose that they were built to serve. That is what I think Steve and Charles are basing the whole point system off of to begin with.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only problem is that the tanks in question weren't bult with the same purpose (for the most part).

[Slapdragon]

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

Good thing you are so above those personal attacks.

Jeff Heidman

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said, I was wrong to feed the troll. I am very sorry to have contributed to the winding down of this thread by participating in this, and I am sure that Jeff is not actually foaming at the mouth in his physical self.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

The current paradigm is the game as written. The new paradigm is the game as it would appear if changed. Evidence must be presented to change the paradigm. Why, because someone will have to code it, and you need to convince them to do it. The someone is Charles and Steve. So the burden of proof is always on the person who wants the game changed, not on the person who wants to keep it the same. The only thing they have to do it reply to the people who want the paradigm shifted and knock down those arguements.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it would be a start if they did that instead of making ad homs and constructing straw-men. This thread has over 100 messages, and most of them are you and CavScout trying to deflect the argument from the point, and people getting annoyed at you guys building strawmen.

The fact remains that BTS made a change. Many people think that change was unfair, and would like to know why the change was made. Whether they are arguing that it is unfair to give the Germans more infantry, or unfair that the Allies get more armor is immaterial. the point is the same in either case.

If you want to use the paradigm argument, then that has to apply to everyone, including Steve and Charles. They do not get a free pass just because they have control. If the paradigm argument applies today, then it applied last month before this change was made.

But the argument itself is nothing more than an attempt to shift any conceivable burden of proof onto whoever disagrees with the status quo. Yet another logical fallacy.

Jeff Heidman

[CavScout]

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

...and I am sure that Jeff is not actually foaming at the mouth in his physical self.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not.

(NOTE: For those who hate anyone not supporting the Uber-German, that was a joke!)

[Panther131]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>With historic evidence, the written word is really considered true unless it gets impeached. A good researcher looks at some works, like the government work in question, and will immediately think that social construction type bias is a possible grounds for impeachment, but that does not mean it is no good. Even from deepest darkest communist Russian in the top of communism documents were produced that were remarkably candid and useful. Here a big grain of salt is needed, but it may turn out the document is good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. Except for "With historic evidence, the written word is really considered true unless it gets impeached."

Thats exactly where I have to disagree. Mainly becouse, not all "written words" are true. And I wouldnt believe it just becouse its a written word. (no pun intended)

For instance and I think this is a good example, John F. Kennedy's Assasination. What I believe like most americans is that he was shot by more then one person. IIRC, that theory was not proven with sucess in the courts, despite making complete sense to most average americans. The written word of this according to the U.S. is that he was shot with one rifle, one man, from the depository building. Which really is impossible within 3 seconds wgat the total time of 3 accurate shots were fired that horrible morning.

This is officialy OT now

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

[Jeff Heidman]

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

The only problem is that the tanks in question weren't bult with the same purpose (for the most part).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would argue that Armor in general on all sides was all built for the same purpose. Certainly not the individual vehicles, but the class in general, which is what we are discussing anyway.

Take a look at all the units that BTS classifies as "armor", for all sides. Give me any role you think one of them fulfills, and their will be an enemy unit intended to fulfill the exact same role. they all do it in differnet ways, and there are certainly differing philosophies amongst them, but in the end they are al trying to get to the same place.

Which is why it is perfectly valid to compare them. Yes, the JgPzIV has a different role than the M7, but for every M7 there is a StuH42, and for every JgPzIV there is an M18.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

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

I do not think their will be that many negotiations. The Germans still look very good to me with the settings. The only negotiations will be for the people who are no good with infantry, or who are the big tank down the center of the road types.

Like I said, I just won Germans last night and I did not even know the change had happened because I never spend all my armour points anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing is, they might look good to you and me, but QB are designed to look good to EVERYONE.

They are designed to provide an *even* fight more than anything. Granted, there is nothing inherently unbalancing about allowing one player more armor than another, but there is something unfair about giving one person more (or different) choices than another, especially when you consider the ramifications of other variables, like terrain and weather.

If I said we should play a fight completely in a city at night in the rain and fog, suddenly it does not seem very fair that the German player gets more infantry points than the Allied player.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

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

I am not.

(NOTE: For those who hate anyone not supporting the Uber-German, that was a joke!)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does anyone have a tissue?

Jeff

[CavScout]

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

I would argue that Armor in general on all sides was all built for the same purpose. Certainly not the individual vehicles, but the class in general, which is what we are discussing anyway.

Take a look at all the units that BTS classifies as "armor", for all sides. Give me any role you think one of them fulfills, and their will be an enemy unit intended to fulfill the exact same role. they all do it in differnet ways, and there are certainly differing philosophies amongst them, but in the end they are al trying to get to the same place.

Which is why it is perfectly valid to compare them. Yes, the JgPzIV has a different role than the M7, but for every M7 there is a StuH42, and for every JgPzIV there is an M18.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For a guy who crys so much about "strawmen" you seem to have no problem building your own.

You'll notice that jshandorf said, "Tanks are tanks are tanks. They may be different in design but conceptually they are equal in the purpose that they were built to serve."

To which I responded, "The only problem is that the tanks in question weren't bult with the same purpose (for the most part)."

Perhaps you missed it but we weren't talking tank-destroyers, self-propelled guns or anything else.

[CavScout]

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

Does anyone have a tissue?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It bring tears to your eyes?

[Slapdragon]

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

With historic evidence, the written word is really considered true unless it gets impeached. A good researcher looks at some works, like the government work in question, and will immediately think that social construction type bias is a possible grounds for impeachment, but that does not mean it is no good. Even from deepest darkest communist Russian in the top of communism documents were produced that were remarkably candid and useful. Here a big grain of salt is needed, but it may turn out the document is good.[/Qoute]

Right. Except for "With historic evidence, the written word is really considered true unless it gets impeached."

Thats exactly where I have to disagree. Mainly becouse, not all "written words" are true. And I wouldnt believe it just becouse its a written word. (no pun intended)

For instance and I think this is a good example, John F. Kennedy's Assasination. What I believe like most americans is that he was shot by more then one person. IIRC, that theory was not proven with sucess in the courts, despite making complete sense to most average americans. The written word of this according to the U.S. is that he was shot with one rifle, one man, from the depository building. Which really is impossible within 3 seconds wgat the total time of 3 accurate shots were fired that horrible morning.

This officailly OT now

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

I use the Kennedy assasination when teaching historical evidence as just such an exercise. We have evidence: the autopsy, the zapruder film, and a whole boat load of documents, including some by Oswald himself. Paradigm would say Kennedy was killed by one man, since the original investigation found that. To come up with a theory of a second gunman we would have to find evidence that it happened otherwise. Also, we would need to defend our findings to change the paradigm.

In fact, many of the Stone set of theories espoused in his movie do not stand up. The magic bullet, when ballistic programs are used to track it motion against Zapruder. Look at frame 223 / 224 and you see where Kennedy was first shot. Garrison claimed that this bullet and the one that hit Gov. Connelly were fired by two different people, but if you blow up Zapruder on Photoshop you can see that from the way they were sitting the bullet makes no turn but remains in straight flight, since (as you can see) Connoly is holding that stupid hat of his leaving is arm, neck, and Kennedy's neck in line. According to the NRA ballaistics lab the bullet would have 1500 fps left when going through Kennedy, like many rifle bullets it had more penetration than needed for its job.

Failure Analysis did a retest of this fire and found that the bullet did almost exactly what it seemed to do in 1962.

I can go on, but the point is that it takes some work to impeach a document, even one that is against paradigm, and it takes way more work to impeach a paradigm like Kennedy being shot by multiple gun man than a single movie based on one book.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

For a guy who crys so much about "strawmen" you seem to have no problem building your own.

You'll notice that jshandorf said, "Tanks are tanks are tanks. They may be different in design but conceptually they are equal in the purpose that they were built to serve."

To which I responded, "The only problem is that the tanks in question weren't bult with the same purpose (for the most part)."

Perhaps you missed it but we weren't talking tank-destroyers, self-propelled guns or anything else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The term "tanks" has been used in this thread to loosely be the same as armor. I am quite certain, from context, that that is what Jeff meant.

Of course, if you want to play the semantic quibbling game:

Meriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1tank

Pronunciation: 'ta[ng]k

Function: noun

Etymology: Portuguese tanque, alteration of estanque, from estancar to stanch, perhaps from (assumed) Vulgar Latin stanticare -- more at STANCH

Date: 1609

...

3 : an enclosed heavily armed and armored combat vehicle that moves on tracks

So, gee, I guess TDs, self-propelled guns, etc, are in fact tanks after all.

And that is what we are discussing, correct? Armor as defined by CM in the QB game generator?

Relax a little bit. Try not to quibble over semantics. Especially in an effort to avoid the issue.

Jeff Heidman

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

[CavScout]

Simply scary that people take Oliver Stone movies as history lessons...

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Simply scary that people take Oliver Stone movies as history lessons...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, I think this might be the second time I have agreed with CavScout.

Jeff Heidman

[CavScout]

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

Wow, I think this might be the second time I have agreed with CavScout.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you prove that?

[von Lucke]

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

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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya know, this seems like the best idea yet.

The point distribution limits seem designed for Human vs. AI play, not Human vs Human. A "free" setting would give all those clammoring for the freedom to have a "fair" QB against another human opponent exactly what they want.

[Slapdragon]

US tanks and German tanks were by 1944 built to a very different design philosphy. The US tank was to puch aside infantry and exploit an attack, while German tanks were built to destroy tanks.

Tank destroyers, self-propelled guns, and assualt guns are all built for different purposes, and even occupy different roles in the US and German armies. The Germans hod nothing like the M18 (atleast they did not employ the Marder like it) and the US never built anything like the Nashorn, even though they are in the same group.

So I agree with CavScout, but disagree in that I believe the point system, as it is expressed on the battlefield and it unit sized forces, allows any unit to engage any unit with the proper tactics assuming they are of the same ballpark point costs. Again, forcing Infantry to attack over open ground with no support is not what I am talking about. I am talking about any reasonable defense / offense / meeting scenario.

Otherwise an infantry force would never be able to defend against an armoured force.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Can you prove that?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you want me to prove that I have agreed with you in the past once, or do you want me to prove that it has not happened more often?

Jeff Heidman

[jshandorf]

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

The only problem is that the tanks in question weren't bult with the same purpose (for the most part).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes AND no here.

When the Sherman was designed and put into production the American army "thought" they had one of the best tanks in the war. They believed this so much they keep repeating it like some mantra and basically anyone who trianed in the vehicle believed it also.

Then came the Normandy invasion and I think we all know what happened there.

The Americans believed they had a good all around tank that could go head to head with the German armor unfortunately they were wrong. I have read many accounts and have seen live intervewis with TCs who said that they actually believed they had a chance against the German armor up until they actually ran into them. It didn't take long to dispells THAT illsion.

Thus the americans tried to improve upon the design but it could only go so far.

Conceptually they thought they had a good tank but what they had was a metal coffin on tracks. I think the point cost for a m4 Sherman reflects this quite well. What isn't it 112 points for a M4? The M4A1 isn't to far from this either. A Panther goes for around 185 points. Off the top of my head that is like a 75% cost increase. To say the least that is significant. Even a PzIV goes for 125 points and its design is 2 years older then the M4 and M4A1.

I believe the philosophy of tactically how to employ American to German tanks may be different but the overall role of a tank in battle is what the point system is measured against and I think the point system represents well enough.

This alone I think you would not have too hard of a time comparing a Sherman to a Panther. Does it look pathetic compared to a Panther? Yes. But that doesn't mean you can't compare them.

Jeff

Jeff

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

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

[Slapdragon]

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

Simply scary that people take Oliver Stone movies as history lessons...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots of people do. I can show people frame by frame the Zapruder film, I can show them the test results and ballistic matching for the bullets, I can show them a 3D image of the bullet cones demonstrating that the Repository was the only place the bullets could have come from. I can let them see the time needed to fire the shots, can identify the shots on the police dictaphone recording and match those to the Zapruder film, then let them try an old Manlicher-Carcano to see how long it takes to rechamber a bullet. I can provide Oswalds marxmanship records, including refirings by other skilled shots, and then someone will say:

but what about the movie and those gay guys in New Orleans....

[Jeff Heidman]

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

US tanks and German tanks were by 1944 built to a very different design philosphy. The US tank was to puch aside infantry and exploit an attack, while German tanks were built to destroy tanks.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some were, some were not. The StuH42 was not built to destroy tanks, nor was the StugIII or IV (although they did a decent enough job at it).

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

Tank destroyers, self-propelled guns, and assualt guns are all built for different purposes, and even occupy different roles in the US and German armies. The Germans hod nothing like the M18 (atleast they did not employ the Marder like it) and the US never built anything like the Nashorn, even though they are in the same group.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are all tanks.

The Germans certainly had something that had exactly the same intended role as the M18. Several things in fact. They went about in a very different manner, but the role was the same.

Once again we have been distracted from the original point. That original point was that it was fair to compare the 200 points given to the German to the 300 points given to the Allies for "armor" purchases because the *purpose* of the units that you could buy with those points were the same when taken as a whole.

Design were radically different, but the reasons for buying the units CM labels as "Armor" were similar.

Jeff Heidman