Some comments about QB point changes

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK,

Seems there has been quite a few, heated, threads about a rather small change we made for Combined Arms Quick Battle point allocations. As you read this, remember that this only applies for COMBINED ARMS type battles.

What we did:

We made changes to the force pools (Infantry/Support/Vehicle/Armor/Artillery/Fortification) after much public feedback about Combined Arms QBs. In some ways these changes "favor" the Allied player, but in other ways favors the German player. These changes also help create more realistic, yet balanced, forces in terms of composition. This is the whole concept behind having force pools in the first place (i.e. you don’t get 1000 points to spend on anything you like).

Let me be clear here... these changes are designed to make Combined Arms Quick Battles more balanced, and in some ways more realistic, than before. These changes were not made to favor the Allied player, but rather counteract certain advantages for German players prior to 1.1 which will, in the end, make both sides more balanced and realistic than they were before.

What we didn't do:

Before I get into the details, let me get rid of one false claim I have seen in the two big threads discussing this issue so far. Some people appear to think both sides used to be (1.05) issued the same number of maximum points for each force pool and that 1.1. departed from this “equality”, therefore we shouldn’t mess with the system in such a new way. It is important to understand this is a false claim since things were never “equal” in terms of how much each side had to spend on a particular unit category. Therefore, the changes made to 1.1 did not break “equality” since it never existed.

Basic, fundamental reasoning in favor of the changes (i.e. the “need”):

The current system for rating units, in terms of points, favors the Germans. The primary reason is that there is no “Rarity” system. So while a Puma might be priced correctly in relation to its characteristics, it can be purchased at any time and in unrealistic numbers. This puts the Allies at a disadvantage because their vehicles are, for the most part, very common but less capable. In the real war the Allies had the real advantage because they had the numbers. In other words, the Stuart might not be as good as a Puma vs. common enemy AFVs, but so few Pumas were ever made they were rarely encountered while the Stuart was a fairly common sight. If you don’t run into something, it doesn’t matter how good it is. We are going to fix this with CM2 using an optional Rarity system.

The other way the point system favors the Germans is the price is based on how good a vehicle is against infantry as well as armor. The US tanks were, for the most part, very good at engaging infantry targets but rather poor at taking on other tanks. For the most part, German tanks and tank destroyers were excellent at taking on other tanks and at least OK against infantry. Some German tank destroyers were piss poor at taking on infantry. The end result is that point for point, German tanks and TDs are better than Allied ones in AFV vs. AFV encounters but significantly not as good versus infantry targets. Thus, if there are only enough points to purchase two “armor” units for each side, the Germans will fare much better all other things equal since the Germans have far more ways of dealing with armor (panzerfaust, Panzerschreck, Pumas, etc.) and a healthy choice for dealing with infantry (various 75mm armed Vehicles).

With more points available for the game the German player can make this imbalance worse by purchasing rather inexpensive, infantry inept, vehicles for tank killing duties (Hetzer) and a decent number of Vehicles for dealing with infantry (250/9, 251/8, and 234/3 in particular). And again, not paying any attention to how rare things like the 234/3 were in the real war. The Allied player, on the other hand, can not compete with these choices all else being equal.

To sum up the problems:

The lack of a Rarity system undeniable favors the German player. At the same time (in 1.05 and earlier), the point costs for units slightly favors the Germans when in a Combined Arms setting due to the allocations for each of the force pools is laid out.

Fixing the problems:

There isn’t much we can do about the Rarity problem right now, but there certainly is in terms of force pool totals. Here are the points laid out (Inf/Sup/Veh/Arm/Art/For) for a Meeting Engagement of 1000 points:

1.05

Allied - 450/146/400/300/187/0

Germ - 450/135/400/300/150/0

1.1

Allied - 560/252/200/300/187/0

Germ - 620/248/250/200/150/0

Here is the logic behind these changes:

#1 Allied Vehicles force pool point reduction - The Allies do not have to spend a large percentage of their total points on useless Vehicles. Not only does this favor the Allied player, but also reduces the “gamey” over purchase of things like Jeeps, which is good for the Germans and realism in general.

#2 German Armor force pool reduction - The Germans were too likely to enter the battlefield with “heavies” even in rather small battles. The Allies were at a disadvantage because they didn’t have enough points to overcome the “heavies” with superior numbers. Now the Germans will find themselves more evenly matched.

#3 German Infantry pool point increase - The German standard infantry has less men per unit than the Allies, yet their prices aren’t significantly less because of their weapons (LMG42, Panzerfaust, etc.). Now the Germans can purchase more infantry so they can, if the player wishes, match the Allies man for man. For a 1000 point battle (what we think of as “average”) both sides can now afford to purchase a full Company TO&E, which was not possible before.

#4 Allied & German Support force pool point increase - Both German and Allied players had their Support pools increased. This was done to support the increased ability to purchase infantry.

For other combos we changes points as well, for example allowing the Germans to have more Fortification points for an Assault type battle. Again, all with the eye of giving the particular type of battle a more balanced and realistic feeling than with previous versions.

What it all means in the end:

Force pool changes were made in order to create better balanced, more realistic forces for both sides in a given situation. Some people have challenged this as being the end result, but so far we haven’t seen any examples in other threads that have supported this notion. On the contrary, the forces that we have seen people list as examples are very nicely balanced out.

The player most likely to complain about these changes is the German player who is overly attached to using “heavies” to win battles instead of utilizing more realistic forces and better tactics. For those people all I can say is that it was always our intention to have balanced QBs. Through a lot of feedback we found that there were some balancing issues and therefore we felt change was needed. These corrections are not all in favor of the Allied player, but the do have an overall effect beneficial to the Allied player. And that was the desired end result since we (and many here on this BBS) felt the Germans had a distinct advantage.

We welcome further discussion on the changes we made, but we are positive that overall we have struck a much better balance than 1.05, so reverting to the way it used to be is not likely to happen.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-21-2001).]

[argie]

Well I have been waiting for this post for a week at least

I think the battles are balanced so far both sides get the same points. And the points reflects actual battle performance.

An Armor Allied Force against a Combined Arms Axis force, or whatever combination are balanced so far both sides ends with the same point allocation.

Ariel

[This message has been edited by argie (edited 01-21-2001).]

[This message has been edited by argie (edited 01-21-2001).]

[Guest Space Thing]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

We welcome further discussion on the changes we made, but we are positive that overall we have struck a much better balance than 1.05, so reverting to the way it used to be is not likely to happen.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-21-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you Steve! IMO, the change was needed and I'm very grateful for it. It is always nice to get the official word.

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Thanks for cutting through endless verbal briar patches with not only a clear policy pronouncement but also a detailed explanation of the why, the reason underlying the changes which were made.

As ever, your customer support is exemplary.

With great appreciation to you, Charles, Madmatt, Kwazydog and the troops,

John Kettler

[Slapdragon]

I would like to add, for the new comer to this discussion, that other solutions exists. The German player can play armour if they absolutely cannot play without the heavies (requesting the allies to play combined arms). They can play bigger battles. They can design their own scenarios. This is not the end all for the people who only play Germans but want to have a well filled out armoured line, there are other options.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks guys

Slapdragon, thanks for posting what I failed to do in my initial post above. German heavies can still be a part of Quick Battles for sure, just not for small to medium sized Meeting Engagements using the Combined Arms option. The reasoning for this is, obviously, located above

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

(snip)

The player most likely to complain about these changes is the German player who is overly attached to using “heavies” to win battles instead of utilizing more realistic forces and better tactics. For those people all I can say is that it was always our intention to have balanced QBs.

(snip)

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Steve

I think the truth of the matter is most accurately quoted above.

There are still plenty of other options.

First letting the computer choose the force selection and play the hand you are dealt.

OR Play scenarios made by others like Rune Designed specifically for 2 player head to head gaming.

OR just don't use "Combined Arms" and play Armour vs Armour or Armour Vs Combined arms.

Its really NO big deal. This game as it stands right now is probably saving you money just because you keep playing it, because if you are at all like the rest of us, we havn't spent a dime on another game since we bought this one.

Its a GREAT GAME!!!

Now what was it, we were all moaning about?

some obscure point allocation thingy? that is somehow only now become unbalanced?

I can't see it really.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-21-2001).]

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

Right on Slapdragon!! oh yeah and BTS. Does that mean your making changes or just explaining the changes you already made? Anyone opposed to a Armor vs. CA? I know i'm not.

[Guest AbnAirCav]

Thanx, Steve, for the post. Looking forward to the CM2 optional Rarity system(s) since I would rather face another Pz IV than a Puma ...

--Keith

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

yeah Just like to say BTS I'm very glad the rairity sys is going to be optional.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

1.05

Allied - 450/146/400/300/187/0

Germ - 450/135/400/300/150/0

1.1

Allied - 560/252/200/300/187/0

Germ - 620/248/250/200/150/0

Here is the logic behind these changes:

#1 Allied Vehicles force pool point reduction - The Allies do not have to spend a large percentage of their total points on useless Vehicles. Not only does this favor the Allied player, but also reduces the “gamey” over purchase of things like Jeeps, which is good for the Germans and realism in general.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How was the Allied player "forced" to purchase jeeps and such? According to the 1.05 percentages above, the Allied player did not need to buy *any* vehicles at all if they did not wish to, much less a "large percentage".

In my experience, the Allied player typically spent whatever Vehicle points he chose to spend on M8 Greyhounds.

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

#2 German Armor force pool reduction - The Germans were too likely to enter the battlefield with “heavies” even in rather small battles.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does "too" likely mean, and why doesn't it apply to the Sherman Jumbo?

If the Germans players typically bought heavies 30% of the time, would that be "too" much? 10%? 5%? And how do you decide what the correct amount is?

Certainly making the percentge 0% will be sure to solve the problem of the Germans having heavies "too" much.

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

The Allies were at a disadvantage because they didn't have enough points to overcome the “heavies” with superior numbers. Now the Germans will find themselves more evenly matched.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you saying that point for point German armor is superior to allied? That in order to be fair, the Allies must actually be given 50% more points than the German player?

That seems like a problem with the point system, if it is the case.

Under the old system, the Allied player could match a German King Tiger with a Sherman (76) and an M18. A match up I would take any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. In fact, when I play the Allies and see a KT or some similar vehicle come creaking and lumbering up the hill, nothing make sme happier. Now I know exactly where all his armor points are, and can deal with them without fear of being taken by surprise.

I do not see how this was actually a problem.

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

#3 German Infantry pool point increase - The German standard infantry has less men per unit than the Allies, yet their prices aren’t significantly less because of their weapons (LMG42, Panzerfaust, etc.). Now the Germans can purchase more infantry so they can, if the player wishes, match the Allies man for man. For a 1000 point battle (what we think of as “average”) both sides can now afford to purchase a full Company TO&E, which was not possible before.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And how is this more "historical" or balanced? It seems like you have to put those points you took away from armor somewhere, and this is it. Sounds to me like now when it comes to infantry, the Germans will have the non-historical advantage.

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

What it all means in the end:

Force pool changes were made in order to create better balanced, more realistic forces for both sides in a given situation.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it is clear that the 1.1 system is neither more or less historical *or* balanced than the 1.05

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

Some people have challenged this as being the end result, but so far we haven’t seen any examples in other threads that have supported this notion. On the contrary, the forces that we have seen people list as examples are very nicely balanced out.

[/b/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They may be balanced, but they are not historical. Neither the 1.05 or the 1.1 system can force a player to be historical, and neither can make a player be ahistorical.

The fact is that the points have to match up in the end. Presumably, if the points do what they are supposed to do, this should deal with any issues of absolute balance. If not, changing force pool percentages cannot help, since it is a zero sum game.

Neither system is inherently more or less historical than the other. It has been conclusively shown that the historical effects are non-existent, and further shown that the original percentages were arbitrary to begin with. Granted, replacing one arbitrary number with another seems like a wash, but the advantage of the previous system was that the numbers, while arbitrary, were at least equal for each side. Now we have arbitrary numbers that are not equal.

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

The player most likely to complain about these changes is the German player who is overly attached to using “heavies” to win battles instead of utilizing more realistic forces and better tactics.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The player most likely to be happy about this change is the Allied player who is overly intimidated by German heavies, well out of proportion to their actual abilities. They will enjoy being able to use force of numbers even greater than before in place of tactics to defeat their German opponents.

I would say my paragraph is about as valid as yours. Meaning not very valid at all.

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

For those people all I can say is that it was always our intention to have balanced QBs. Through a lot of feedback we found that there were some balancing issues and therefore we felt change was needed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just do not see this. If there was balancing issues in 1.05, they must have been pretty subtle since I cannot recall a single post on the forum claiming such.

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

These corrections are not all in favor of the Allied player, but the do have an overall effect beneficial to the Allied player. And that was the desired end result since we (and many here on this BBS) felt the Germans had a distinct advantage.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who were these people? Why didn't we see any posts to that effect? Is there some system for player initiated change that is unknown to many of us?

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

We welcome further discussion on the changes we made, but we are positive that overall we have struck a much better balance than 1.05, so reverting to the way it used to be is not likely to happen.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-21-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Emphasis added by me)

In the end, the true net effect of these changes will be that the German player will buy less armor, and more ahistorical vehicles like Pumas and such, simply because he will have to to keep up with the Allies vast potential advatage in armor. Balance will not be overly effected one way or the other, nor will anything other than the ability for two players to make selections on an even playing field.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-22-2001).]

[Treeburst155]

BTS has simply tweaked the QBs so that the game plays more like they want it to. They feel they've improved their product. Some may not agree with them but in the end it's what BTS wants that goes in. If I want to paint my kitchen red and you don't like it well then that's just tough. Besides, to get an "even playing field" out of a QB you would have to have symmetrical maps. The maps are the real imbalance, not the makeup of the forces. 1,000 pts. is a 1,000 points no matter how it is forced to be allocated (within reason of course). In closing let me just add that REAL men play scenarios anyway. QBs are just training grounds.

Treeburst155

[Tanaka]

Steve,

" ...these changes are designed to make Combined Arms Quick Battles more balanced, and in some ways more realistic..."

You did forget that, as the things are, the Allied player can still buy the Jumbo76, M26 and T26E4, (Did the last two tanks shot at any moving German Tank during the war?),and this in a 1000 pts ME QB, where the German player can't buy any of the VIBs.

" The Germans were too likely to enter the battlefield with “heavies” even in rather small battles"

On my 53(45 to ladders) PBEM/TCPIP game experience,(most of them 1000 to 1500 pt), I never, never sow a Pz VIB or a JgPz VIB in battle... Do I hand pick my adversaries, in short, no. On the other side I've found one lonely Allied Jumbo in all those games.

"...The player most likely to complain about these changes is the German player who is overly attached to using “heavies” to win battles instead of utilizing more realistic forces and better tactics..."

This makes me mad ... I play ANY side... Pay close attention, I'm complaining about a change that only favors my way of playing (ask any of my adversaries), I'm doing it only , because I like to beat or be beaten by my adversaries in a equal opportunity ME QB. If the people can't or don't know how to beat the German armor it wont be more 50 % armor points that will do it, at least in a fair way. Remember, the same people that use heavy German armor, are the same that use heavy Allied Armor, think on that.

(Just a remark, I don't have anything pro or against Heavy armor users )

"We welcome further discussion on the changes we made..."

I wouldn't expect other thing from the makers of the best game I have, in all aspects, fun/$, reality, entertainment, durability/$ and so on...

[Beer_n_Pretzels]

BTS,

Good Stuff.

Jeff H, I can see your point of view, but I'm more than happy to play the Germans in a 1000-1500 point QB. From what I've seen from experienced players like Fionn etc, The game will be won by the Infantry. Armour just gives you something to do while the infantry are yomping towards the objectives

[M. Bates]

Don't forget that the Greyhound is better than most of the Puma models...

These changes surely mean that the German player overloads with Hetzers??

[Jarmo]

So, for further discussion.

How about the "unlimited" purchasing option?

[Slapdragon]

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

(Emphasis added by me)

In the end, the true net effect of these changes will be that the German player will buy less armor, and more ahistorical vehicles like Pumas and such, simply because he will have to to keep up with the Allies vast potential advatage in armor. Balance will not be overly effected one way or the other, nor will anything other than the ability for two players to make selections on an even playing field.

Jeff Heidman

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, you made an series of unsupported statements in response to BTS. At this point they have bent over backwards to layout the reasoning behind why the game was changed. So now comes the task:

Prove them wrong. Prove the Germans had more armour at the front, prove that the game is unbalanced by running a test group through a set of games (a la beta testers), prove that the Germans should not have a wider pool. Comes down to being able to do the following:

1) Show BTS where their accuracy falls down.

2) Propose a new system that replaces the BTS system and is more accurate.

Asking BTS to prove all the negatives is fine, but meaningless. How do you prove that you are not a communist, alien, homosexual, democrat, mercenary, elephant trainer, or having an affair with a panda bear if you were so accused? The answer is that it is absurd to ask anyone to prove a negative (except in high school debates with a debate teacher that is not too good). So lets see your system, and its historical and playtesting justification.

If you want to see an example of a series of proofs that used more than just a penetration table, were well written, and had focuse, that also changed BTS's mind -- look at Rexford's recent discussions. They are of high quality and a lot can be learned from them about the art of weaving an effective argument.

It is important to add that advances like the move from 1.05 to 1.1 represent minor advances in technology. Any advance in technology is seens with a certain sense of forboding by some groups. Generally, it is up to those groups to come up with saolid reasons why the advance is bad, or else it remains in place. It is like replacing oil lamps with electric. Many people of the time hated it, and wanted the oil lamps back. Just like this situation, they could get their oil back (ie play armour or design your own scenario, or play larger scenarios) but they wanted everyone else to be forces to go back to oil also. Although had some advantages for lighting a home, electricity was much superior, so building an argument was of course impossible.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 01-22-2001).]

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I understand your reasoning Steve & wont argue with it from the German standpoint but it does concern me that the very same argument cansurely be applied to the Allies & one can now expect a veritable flood of Meeting Engagement games where Sherman Jumbo's are the order of the day & the German force is playing with one hand tied behind its back trying to couneract them.

In combination with the other Alied advantage (hopefully short-lived) of tungsten shots able to penetrate wel sloped armour without penalty I feel that many players may well opt out of playing the Axis side in a Meeting Engagement with this current combination under ver. 1.1.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Regards

Jim R.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

I understand your reasoning Steve & wont argue with it from the German standpoint but it does concern me that the very same argument cansurely be applied to the Allies & one can now expect a veritable flood of Meeting Engagement games where Sherman Jumbo's are the order of the day & the German force is playing with one hand tied behind its back trying to couneract them.

In combination with the other Alied advantage (hopefully short-lived) of tungsten shots able to penetrate wel sloped armour without penalty I feel that many players may well opt out of playing the Axis side in a Meeting Engagement with this current combination under ver. 1.1.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Regards

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would they opt out Jim? Vanir showed a dozen great combinations that work well, the game is still playing ok, and except for the smalled meeting engagements not being able to buy the very heaviest tanks, no real effect can be enumerated or found.

I also cannot figure out why people think the Jumbo is the best tank in the game. It's armour is not that great, it bogs, and it has a 75mm gun. It is vulnerable to a 75mm at close range, and a long 75mm at medium range. If you agree not to buy a German heavy, I would gladly give up the overated thing. People would think it was a hover craft with a nuetron cannon from all the talk.

I do not argue it places restrictions, but it places historical restrictions. Maybe a fantasy football setting is warranted, but the people who want it the most right now are going to hate it the most when the allies can buy tungsten by the round and Pershings in June (the argument being we are all adults in this game, we should be left with no limits because it will be handled responsibly in all cases supporting this).

I think the only people who will opt out are those who do not play chess because they cannot get a two knight advantage when playing black, white obviously being over stocked with knights.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 01-22-2001).]

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

Steve,

Thanks for cutting through endless verbal briar patches with not only a clear policy pronouncement but also a detailed explanation of the why, the reason underlying the changes which were made.

As ever, your customer support is exemplary.

With great appreciation to you, Charles, Madmatt, Kwazydog and the troops,

John Kettler<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What John said.

I always appreciate the effort on part of the developer to document his rationale concerning a "contentious" issue.

[Papa Smurf]

From Jeff Heideman

Quote - "In fact, when I play the Allies and see a KT or some similar vehicle come creaking and lumbering up the hill, nothing make sme happier. Now I know exactly where all his armor points are, and can deal with them without fear of being taken by surprise." - endquote

Now I'm not (by any stretch of the imagination) a grog - I play the game 'cos it's fun, I personally don't give a stuff about historical accuracy in TO&E, but EVEN to me this sounds like gaminess.

(not having a pop - just an observation)

On a slightly related issue I have a question - how does the computer spend its points when purchasing units - is it completely random or weighted towards either good or historical units?

I'd appreciate ANY help on that one.

TIA

Neil

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

I don't sing. I don't dance. I ain't blue. Anything else you need to know?

[This message has been edited by Papa Smurf (edited 01-22-2001).]

[Tanaka]

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

...

I also cannot figure out why people think the Jumbo is the best tank in the game. It's armour is not that great, it bogs, and it has a 75mm gun. It is vulnerable to a 75mm at close range, and a long 75mm at medium range...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only one I did see was a Jumbo 76 with T ammo, the people don't like "rocks"

Now read this...

I also cannot figure out why people think the King Tiger is the best tank in the game. It's armour is not that great, it bogs, and it has a 88mm gun. It is vulnerable to a 76mm at close range, and a 76mm T ammo at medium range...

Didn't you here this some where ?

Now we are making progress

[Gremlin]

I'd say a single KT is an accident waiting to happen, but four of them working in concert would be a different matter--not that we see that situation much

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

When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans.

--Marcus Aurelius

[Slapdragon]

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

The only one I did see was a Jumbo 76 with T ammo, the people don't like "rocks"

Now read this...

I also cannot figure out why people think the King Tiger is the best tank in the game. It's armour is not that great, it bogs, and it has a 88mm gun. It is vulnerable to a 76mm at close range, and a 76mm T ammo at medium range...

Didn't you here this some where ?

Now we are making progress <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The King Tiger is not all that great, I agree totally. People love to buy it, you see it often, but it is more of a handicap unless you have some space to use it as a retreating bunker. The 88mm gun though, which you joke about, is great against infantry under hard cover (except it does not have much ammo), its biggest advantage over the Jumbo.

[Tanaka]

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

The King Tiger is not all that great, I agree totally...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that we agree there...

What do you think of this observation by Steve ?

"...The Germans were too likely to enter the battlefield with “heavies” even in rather small battles..."

Maybe it should say ... "The Germans and Allies were too likely..."

Giving it a 2nd thought... the German and Allies was before the changes, now it's only "The Allied were too likely to enter the ..."

What do you say ?