Some comments about QB point changes

[Philistine]

Definitely glad to see BTS put out a detailed post on this issue. Even if you don't agree with their reasoning (and I'm still not sure if I do), it's plain that they continue to try to make CM as good as possible, and listen to feedback.

That said ( ), my main critique of the change has been that it would increase "gamesmanship" in setting up battles between two human players. Whether this concern (if it even materilizes) is outweighed by the benefits of the change I'm not nearly qualified to answer. I don't recall seeing any great (indeed any at all) outcry on the board over the force pools causing unfairness before, and it might of been helpful to have discussed the issue before making the change, but it's really not a catastrophic change.

It seems that the real effect of the change will be to remove the biggest German tanks from 1000 point QB's (which is not necessarily a bad thing). However, it seems that they will likely be replaced by Hetzers and Pumas. Time will tell.

With regard to Allied use of "super-heavies", I'm not sure we'll see too much of it (except maybe even more Churchills) due to the German Infantry's (including AT teams) better anti-tank ability. Again, time will tell.

I must say, though, that I am very happy to see the increase in support points (particularly for the Allies), as it was frustrating to effectively max out support points by just buying an infantry company.

Once again, thanks for the post BTS.

--Philistine

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

[Polar]

If anything, given the new rules, the Allies HAVE to purchase more Anti-Infantry weapons.

Compplaints that Tank-to-Tank combat now weighs heavily in favor of the Allies seems moot unless playing against the most naive of players.

For instance.... if I spend my 300 armor points of tungsten wielding TKs or 76s, they will be utterly useless after the Germans one tank is dead. This DID happen all too often in previous games... killing the German tank was essentially killed my armor as well.

Now when I play, whether they complain or not, the Germans tend to have much more infantry than before, so I have less TKs.

And I NEVER waste money on a Jumbo, as more often then I care to think about, they wind up stuck on the wrong side of a slope somewhere. I think the German players just have a "Heavy" mindset... somehow when they can't buy a heavy they are SURE that I am buying a heavy.... but why would I? I'd be an idiot to but a TK or a Jumbo when they will only be useful against a very few targets.

Likewise... why the hell would a German play load up on Hetzers? Do they have a deathwish? If two equally inept players face off... one with a Jumbo, the other with hetzers, they'd be laughably mismatched. When the Hetzers kill the Jumbo (assuming it doesn't bog somewhere), what is left for the Hetzers to do? Nada. So all the points spent between the two of them are wasted... because those Hetzers aren't going to hold an objectives againts even a squad of infantry.

Joe

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

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

[Slapdragon]

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

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 ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Better would be:

The Allies do not have a true heavy until Dec 44 / Jan 45, the Churchill and Jumbo not even being a match tank to tank for the panther and tiger, despite costing as much or more. A Jumbo or a Churchill that rumble in front of a Nashorn are dead. In addition, both are vulnerable to the Chreck head on, while the German Panther and Tiger are not vulnerable except when they have over run the infantry.

This is all non starters anyway. Support the supposition that game balance has been hurt, or that allies will suddenly start doing what they have not done before, rush to buy Jumbos.

[Olle Petersson]

As far as I can see, the only true improvement with the new point balance is that it allows both sides to get a full infantry company.

My personal opinion about what constitutes a nicely balanced, infantry heavy, combined arms force, is to have about one tank per inf platoon. In points one infantry platoon is about the same as a moderate tank, so equal points on Armor and Infantry seems right.

For an armour heavy combined arms force I'd take about equal number of armour/infantry platoons.

If I want to play a combined arms force I pick the Armor option and use a lot of the infantry points allowed.

Cheers

Olle

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

Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight...

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

As far as I can see, the only true improvement with the new point balance is that it allows both sides to get a full infantry company.

My personal opinion about what constitutes a nicely balanced, infantry heavy, combined arms force, is to have about one tank per inf platoon. In points one infantry platoon is about the same as a moderate tank, so equal points on Armor and Infantry seems right.

For an armour heavy combined arms force I'd take about equal number of armour/infantry platoons.

If I want to play a combined arms force I pick the Armor option and use a lot of the infantry points allowed.

Cheers

Olle

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Choosing armour is the best solution for people who want armour heavy forces, either side. You still get 1/5 of your forces as infantry if you want, and you get all the armour you desire.

[Henri]

Kudos to BTS for explaining their rationale to the forum.

However I think that there is another reason (that BTS may not be conscious of) for the constraints.

Consider the rock scissors and paper analogy: if one player (say A) does not follow the optimum strategy (evenly distributed random choices), player B can always win over the long run by following the appropriatge counter-strategy.To take an extreme example, if A chooses scissors half the time instead of 1/3 of the time as he should, B can win more games in the long run by choosing rock half of the time.

Does this ensure a balanced game? Not at all: if both players follow the optimum strategy, the wins even out in the long run, but ONE player will always have the advantage in any single game.

Now apply those principles to CM: if both players are allowed to buy units without any constraints, the point value system (assuming it is fair)will ensure an equal probability of winning, but it is highly likely that any single game will be highly unbvalanced.

Because CM is not a single-move game like the above, the only way to increase the probability that any single game will give each player an equal probability of winning is to add constraints to the purchase of units.To take an extreme case, if both players could buy only infantry, every game would be balanced.

So the real question is: how much constraint does it take to ensure a high probability that any single game will have a high probability of being balanced? Although this is a purely mathematical question that no doubt has a quantitative answer, I don't believe that in practice it is possible to find it.The answer of BTS is the present system.

The question is further complicated by the fact that BTS is also trying to force the players to use historical OOBs in Quick Battles. Can these two complimentary objectives be reached? I doubt it, but I appreciate the attempt.

For example, my response to the new German armor constraints in 1000-pt QB ME's is to buy one or two Hetzers and a couple of halftracks and or a PzIVJ, which is not much more historical than having a Tiger; but it is less risky than buying a single Panther, because if you lose that you have lost the game (in a 1000-pt QB ME).

Whatever choice one makes, he should be aware that given the rock scissors and paper analogy, if his choice of units is entirely predictable and that of his opponent is not, the latter can always get an advantage assuming that the game gives him sufficient flexibility.

So now we can see that the true advantage does not go to the player who has more tanks, but to the [player that has more flexibility in unit purchase. Let me add that at this point, it is not clear to me which player has the most flexibility.

In sum we see that purchase constraints is a dilemma:a) put too many constraints and the OOB's will always be the same, which defeats the purpose of Quick Battles;b)don't put enough constraints and most games will be highly unbalanced.

Although the above helps to understand how constraints affect the game, it does not address the question of whether or not the present point distribution is fair.But I believe that it does clearly indicate the need for SOME constraints.

Henri

[Guest Space Thing]

Man! Now I know why the other gaming companies show less concern for the opinions of their customers and hardly explain anything.

We all have the right to like or dislike anything BTS decides, but they are essentially the US Supreme Court here. Well, actually they're a lot better and fairer IMHO. More power to them!

[Mr. Clark]

Getting in late here, so just gonna say THANKS to BTS.

[deanco]

Yeah, something I've known for a while: not every QB generated is necessesarily a good game. I don't see how they all can be good games given the number of random factors over which no one has any control, the random map generator being the most striking example. In this I compare CM to another of my all time great games, Civilization. Not every map was a balanced map in that game either. The game was just too open-ended to control everything that could (and did) happen.

So I see this as an effort on BTS' part to insure that there are a GREATER NUMBER of playable and balanced QBs generated. They have the figures, they have the expertise... the whole force balance thing may be an educated guess on BTS's part, but the operative word here is "educated".

I got some good 1000 pt. QB buy templates out of some of these discussions. Thanks to the people who posted those. But at this point the whole thing really seems like a case of 'much ado about... well, not much'.

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

DeanCo--

CM interface mods: http://mapage.cybercable.fr/deanco/

so many games...so little time

[Vanir]

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

But at this point the whole thing really seems like a case of 'much ado about... well, not much'.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's kinda how I see it as well. When the changes were first announced I was worried that is may throw the balance off. But the more I've played around with it the more apparent it has become that there is no balance problem. The Germans can achieve armor parity with the Allies at every point level. Anyone who says otherwise has not tried it yet.

Most of the debate is of a philosophical bent. Was the change fair? Is it more historical? Is BTSs reasoning sound? Who cares. As long as the Germans still have an equal chance in QBs, its of minor importance. Certainly not worth all the server space dedicated to it.

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

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

[jshandorf]

Looks like BTS made the change for game balancing AND more historical TOEs. Though until they get a rarity system I don't think they will ever be able to really enforce historical picks.

This is pretty much what I had been asking all along for. All I wanted was some sound reasoning for the new "balancing" and I got it. While I still don't agree with it there it is.

IMO over 50% of the games I play come down to knocking out the otherside's armor. If you can do that then whoever does it will have an advantage. At least that is what I have always seen. Too many times in games, as the axis player, I get swarmed with Allied armor, which is to say historical, but in all truth not very much fun to play.

Oh people say that you can use your Schrecks, or P-Fhausts, but in truth, if the Allied player uses half of his brain these tank AT weapons are very ineffective. Proper infantry screens and advancing maneuvers should eliminate these threats from the battle field most of the time. IMO my AT ability comes down to my tanks and my AT-Guns and while I now can buy a few more AT-Guns it looks as if I have to buy less armor.

Does this make the game balanced and fair? Not sure... Was it fair before? Not sure again... I guess it comes down to it game balancing equates to "fun to play" more then historical will any day.

Jeff

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

First of all, David, you stupid sot, if names were meant to be descriptive, everyone would have the, culturally appropriate, name of, "Ugly little purple person that cries and wets itself." -Meeks.

[aka_tom_w]

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

snip

IMO over 50% of the games I play come down to knocking out the otherside's armor. If you can do that then whoever does it will have an advantage. At least that is what I have always seen. Too many times in games, as the axis player, I get swarmed with Allied armor, which is to say historical, but in all truth not very much fun to play.

snip

Jeff

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am Not entirely agreeing with Jeff here

BUT I think the above quoted statement is VERY true. I think that at LEAST 50% of the games I play are won or decided by the player that wins the tank battle. If there are tanks involved and there usually are, the winner of the game is usually the winner of the tank dual. What does this mean?

I'm not sure, but in a 1000 pt QB the player that KOs the most emeny AFV's usually wins the battle.

So what is my point?

I like the game just fine the way it is now, but I think that it is STILL all about winning the armour battle and now Allied tanks shoot fast and hit harder with Tungsten, they are more accurate at short range (as are all tanks so it seems) than before. There are now more first shot hits. Many of these things favour the Allies with their fast tanks and fast turrets.

What I want to know is if die hard players that like to win and ALWAYS play the germans are not choosing the Germans any more in QB's because they can't win the way they used to.

Is this happeing out there? In Ladder games are players now mostly takeing the Allies because this is the only side they can win with in the 1000 pt QB? Somehow I don't think so but I would be interested in hearing other poeples opinions on this question.

If "winning is EVERYTHING" and the Only thing in the 1000 point combine Arms QB will you now (the way things are right now in v1.1) always take the Allies? Or if you have prefered to play the germans in the past will you still choose that side?

I don't play ladder games so I would be interested in finding out what is happeing in the arena where people play with this passion to win at all costs. (I prefer to play to win at all costs as well, but I have always prefered the Allies, particularily the British)

Thanks

-tom w

[Mr. Clark]

Heh Heh...

It's funny you mention that.

I have played the Germans a total of 3 times since I have owned the game.

It was ALWAYS easy to find a PBeM game in which I could play the Allies, in fact opponents would fall all over themselves when they heard I WANTED to play Allies!

In the last two PBeM games I have attempted to set up, opponents are now stating (as a fact, not a choice) that they WILL play the Allies.

I dropped one of these games right away, and we'll see how the other one goes... I have a feeling it will go very, very gamey...

(The reason I dropped the first game is because it was FACT that it would be too gamey for me, from the way he was talking.)

The post that said that all this armor point totals, my "side" is getting screwed, blah blah blah stuff was "Much ado about not much" was soooo CORRECT from my viewpoint.

I just want to play someone who wants to play semi-realistic or historically correct battles. I cannot tell you how tired I am of seeing those 5 KT's rumble up the hilltop...

[M Hofbauer]

In this matter I'm sort of a neutral third party as I haven't played any more h2h QBs lately (time constraints; while I did I didn't feel any advantage in using either axis or allies); still I'ld like to comment:

1.

Steve/BTS: "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."

sorry but I don't get this. I thought it was all accounted for by the point system being based on combat effectivity. I had always been told that a 100-point tank is worth just that, and that an american 100-point tank is just as valuable / effective as a german 100-point tank. This collides with above statement. Something wrong here. If american tanks are less capable they should accordingly cost less according to the QB pricing policy. Voilá.

??

2. I can see Jeff Heidmann's, Tanaka's and the other's points. And I also agree with those who argue that the big-tank fetish isn't a german player thing. Both players have big tanks in their pools.

3. Finally, I think what this does is move focus away from tanks to infantry. As someone pointed out, infantry is the winning key in most battles anyhow.

However, I think this is bad. Why? Because in my opinion, AFV's is were CM and it's model of reality shine brightest, bettter than the infantry model in all it's abstraction is not (squad-size, volley fire, firepower abstraction, fuzzy location). I'm an infantry player, a cc-borne tank hater, but if CM is reduced to "mostly infantry" it loses a lot.

Either way, IMO it's not something to get worked up about too much, since (as people have shown) there are plenty of workarounds and it isn't a make-or-break issue anyhow.

Thank you BTS for the 1.1 patch and your continued effort ! Can't wait for CM2!!

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

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

"Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ)

[Juardis]

Maybe I'm different than most people, but I don't buy a lot of armor because I suck at using it. So the change that allows me to buy a full company is a welcome one. And when I do buy armor, it is certainly not the heavies. If I want to play with the heavies, I setup a QB with AI.

What I will say is this though. It is very frustrating trying to take out a tank with nothing but infantry when the TAC AI is constantly reversing them out of danger. I spend a considerable amount of time to work my infantry and zooks into close assault range without being killed, yet when I get there the enemy usually spots me (even when they're buttoned) and reverses out of danger.

The argument about Hetzers being useless once the enemy armor is gone is a valid one. I like it when my opponent has Hetzers and I have infantry. However, since they're so cheap, they're like a rolling AT gun so 100 points can easily counteract a 250 point Jumbo. And since they are only 100 points +/-, they're not that big a waste if there is no armor for them to take out. I gaurantee that there will be more Hetzers with this new arrangement. To make up for the loss of infantry killers though, there will be a lot more 250/8, 250/9, 251/9 roaming the battlefields. So the allies will have to compensate for that with zooks and 50s.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well, I too think this is much ado about nothing. People like Jeff are very quick to pass judgement and cry fowl, but are fairly slow to produce a well balanced, logical argument to counter ours. And having a chip on his shoulder doesn't help either

Look... if you want a battle with 10 Jagdtigers in it play a QB with different options. Sheesh... it is really that simple. The changes we made only affect one very small slice of game options and in no way shape or form discriminate against German players in favor of Allied ones. Well, at least not the way we are being accused of. The Germans had a distinict advantage before and now it is more even.

Although these changes mostly benefit the Allied player (but not totally) it does not mean that they are now favored to win in these types of battles. A detailed look at actual possible purchase outcomes disproves this very easily, although straw man arguments certain can be propped up to show that the poor little German player is now going to get his butt kicked unfairly.

Bottom line is that the changes do in fact make the game more ballanced. The Allies could not use their total points nearly as effectively as the German player because the Germans have more and better choices. Also, as I explained, the point rating system favors German vehicles in an AFV vs. AFV situation simply becuase of the way things shake out. These problems do not mean that the point cost basis system need fixing, but rather the lack of a Rarity system gives the Germans an advantage that they never, ever, in their wildest dreams had on the Western Front (i.e. quantity AND quality of armored forces vs. Allied armored forces). Until the Rarity system is offered we can only do so much.

The changes also makes it a little more realistic. Jeff and a few others have taken this position out of context and make it look like we are claiming that these tweaks do something far more than what they do. Until a Rarity system is in place, there will be no elimnation of "gamey" unit choices. However, it does reduce certain balancing problems. It appears to me that the people that disagree with this the most are the ones that haven't really tried things out to see if it is true or not. Vanir being one of the best cases...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That's kinda how I see it as well. When the changes were first announced I was worried that is may throw the balance off. But the more I've played around with it the more apparent it has become that there is no balance problem. The Germans can achieve armor parity with the Allies at every point level. Anyone who says otherwise has not tried it yet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vanir originally expressed doubt that we made the right decision. But instead of bitching and accusing us of favoring the Allies out of some sort of notion of historical bias, he went into the game and tried some combos to see what he could come up with. He posted quite a few of these, all of which were NOT challenged by the anti-change camp. Likewise, unbalanced forces (at least more so than with 1.05) have not been posted to back up the claims that we have done the German player an injustice.

In conclusion... this is the typical response we expected. Most people think that we have made at least some improvements, or at the worst kept things about the same as they were before. A few have complained, but have failed to produce a case that shows us to have made an error in judgement. Until someone can show us how the Germans are now at a disadvantage, we won't even think of making a change. And any case showing how the Germans are now "disadvantaged" should be successfully countered with examples of how they were previous at an "advantage" in 1.05 and earlier.

Steve

[Jasper]

Given rules there will be rulesmith's. Seems like to me anyone with a strong opinion of the allocation of points is by definition a rulesmith. Yes it takes one to know one, but I usually turn it off. Some will, no doubt, re-balance their optimized forces to get the maximum firepower per point ratio - and since there is only one best solution - play with the same forces over and over again.

Personally all I want is for the rules to bring it in something close - I'll take it from there. I don't get hung up on the 'historical' thing - because then I'd have to let the computer pick out my forces - and quite frankly I find choosing my forces to be more fun.

In choosing one's own forces - leads to issues like: Since Puma's where used in combat - why can't my QB be one of the battles where Puma's where used? The effort to reduce the number of Puma's "out there" will result in either (a) randomly being excluded from purchase in QB's ( the cost of a Puma will vary from QB to QB or © the cost of the Puma being raised so of a statistical sample of QB players - 50% of the players that always choose Puma's will choose something else. If someone viewed themselves as a 'Puma Commander', or wanted to play a 'Puma lead reconnaissance patrol QB' then they might find any alteration in the present scheme frustrating.

Personally I don't care - my boredom threshold is low enough that I doubt I'll pick the same forces twice. I find HT's handy, and cheap, and so will find the temptation to not purchase none difficult indeed. So what? It's only a game.

Oh one last thing. I prefer ladder games as a cheap way to vet out the flakes of the world. And I'd rather lose than cross my gaming principles. So the assumption that every last one of us ladder players is a panting 'win at all cost' rulesmith is incorrect.

However: I *hate* having to leave the opponents radio's unjammed, his off-map artillery unengaged, and his supplies / reinforcements interdiction free. So maybe I am a little competitive

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

[Specter]

Mr. Clark,

You are right, no one wants to see 5 kt's come rumbling over the hill. But the same can be said for the allies as well - can I tell you how tired I am of seeing British Churchill VIII's come rumbling over the hill?

It goes both ways!

I'm all for a more historical game but it never happens that way and allied players are just as responsible!

[Runyan99]

BTS,

Sounds good to me. The Allies probably *should* have at least a 3-2 advantage in armor, historically.

Finally being able to purchase a full company of infantry is also a welcome change.

I'm all for the rarity system too. How will it work? I suggest that each "rare" unit, beyond the first, should get more and more expensive. Therefore your 3rd Puma will cost much more than your 1st, for example.

[Guest Big Time Software]

M. Hoffbauer wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>sorry but I don't get this. I thought it was all accounted for by the point system being based on combat effectivity. I had always been told that a 100-point tank is worth just that, and that an american 100-point tank is just as valuable / effective as a german 100-point tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your understanding of the system is correct, but you misunderstood the problem I outlined. A Puma and a M8 cost exactly the same. However, the chances of seeing an M8 on the battlefield was probably 10-15 times more likely than a Puma. If all the Germans had to choose from was a Puma this wouldn't be such a big deal. But nearly all of the units in the German Vehicle force pool are quite rare, while the ones in the Allied pool (generally) more common. So... in the real war the Allies have to combat a weapon (say for example the Puma) as if it were as common as dirt without weapons designed to counter act the Puma because in the real war they didn't run into them enough for this to be needed.

Put another way... if the Germans had, say, 24 Pumas available for all their divisions, the Allies would have had to come up with something to counter it. Think of it like the post-war arms race of the weapons development on the Eastern Front. The lack of a Rarity system, coupled with lots of great Vehicle choices, inherently favors the German player.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I can see Jeff Heidmann's, Tanaka's and the other's points. And I also agree with those who argue that the big-tank fetish isn't a german player thing. Both players have big tanks in their pools.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that both sides can abuse historical availability of the big stuff. However, the Allied player is a lot harder pressed to deal with German heavies than the other way around. The Pershing isn't that great of a tank, and neither are the Jumbos. They are certainly better than a Sherman 75 or a Mark IV, but not that much better than a Panther (yet more expensive) and can be countered by a Jagdpanther or Pak41 quite easily even with a 1000 point battle. Not to mention a King Tiger or a Jagdtiger in larger battles. The Allies, on the other hand, don't have many options for dealing with KTs and JTs. So if I, as an Allied player, want to make sure I can survive a German armored attack I know I have to purchase the biggest thing I possibly can because the Germans have a far more lethal range of vehicles to choose from. Also, more importantly...

The Germans can overmatch the Allies in any given month covered in CM. The Allies have a better chance later in the war with the Pershing, but a simple choice of when the game takes place can wipe out this option. On balance, as it should be, the Allies are at an inherent disadvantage in a single AFV vs. AFV battle. If anybody wishes to dispute this point, I will be at a loss to understand why

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Finally, I think what this does is move focus away from tanks to infantry. As someone pointed out, infantry is the winning key in most battles anyhow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has always been a problem with discussion on this BBS. I will take on any Allied player that squanders his 300 points on a Jumbo 76 any day of the week.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I'm an infantry player, a cc-borne tank hater, but if CM is reduced to "mostly infantry" it loses a lot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. If you want to play up the armor aspect of CM, it is quite simple -> play with the correct QB options. Namely the "Armor" one. If you want to play all infantry, there is that option as well. Combined Arms is supposed to be just that. And the changes we have made better reflect this than 1.05 did. So really, there is no problem in terms of "detracting" from tank warfare.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Either way, IMO it's not something to get worked up about too much, since (as people have shown) there are plenty of workarounds and it isn't a make-or-break issue anyhow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thank you BTS for the 1.1 patch and your continued effort ! Can't wait for CM2!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks and niether can I!

Steve

[Mr. Clark]

Specter, I agree with you!

I used the 5 KT's example, because I nearly always play Allies, but there are certainly Allied players out there that choose only Jumbo's, etc.

I have NOT ONCE purchased a Jumbo in a QB PBeM... but that is just my taste, I like this game because of the "realism" factor. I just wish I could find others to PBeM with that I could trust to pick a fairly realistic force...

One more note (on topic)- I too am an infantry player, so I am glad to see the ability to purchase a Company as well as the increase to support points.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Runyan99:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm all for the rarity system too. How will it work? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Best thing to do is a Search on the word "Rarity". It is a rather indepth feature to discuss, and trying to do so here would be a mistake

Steve

[Jarmo]

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

... as if it were as common as dirt without weapons designed to counter act the Puma because in the real war they didn't run into them enough for this to be needed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But there are the needed vehicles.

Greyhound for US is the perfect weapon against any german AC.

Instant turret, fast ROF, dead accurate, enough punch for the task.

The Daimler is not quite as deadly, but can still counter any AC it comes up against.

Quite seriously, with it's weak armour, weakish gun, and slow turret rotation, the Puma

is a far cry from the superweapon some seem to think it is.

The 75mm "puma" used to be a worthwhile piece, but since it's price was upped, there

are NO german AC's worth their price.

Meaning, if I use "armor" force type, I never purchase AC's, as none have a good enough

price/performance ratio.

When playing allies, there are still a few "good" items in the british vehicle list.

Oh, maybe it's pruden't to add again that while I keep bitching all the time,

I only do it 'cause I love the game. (tough love?)

[Panther131]

posted by BTS: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I agree that both sides can abuse historical availability of the big stuff. However, the Allied player is a lot harder pressed to deal with German heavies than the other way around. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And now the german player is more hard pressed to deal with allied armor. So what is really fixed here? I cant prove this to you but I can give you my gut feeling. I have played, and in 95% of tcp/ip games I have played, the one with the last tank wins.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Look... if you want a battle with 10 Jagdtigers in it play a QB with different options. Sheesh... it is really that simple. The changes we made only affect one very small slice of game options and in no way shape or form discriminate against German players in favor of Allied ones. Well, at least not the way we are being accused of. The Germans had a distinict advantage before and now it is more even. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeesus....who is talking about rolling out 10 Jagdtigers? My god, this is ludicrous. Who wants that? It is obvious that if one wants 10 Jagdtigers they will play an armor battle? No? I dont understand this statement becouse IT IS OBVIOUS we are talknig about small 1000 point ca me's. I dont see the relevancy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Until a Rarity system is in place, there will be no elimnation of "gamey" unit choices. However, it does reduce certain balancing problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it increases others. So in a sense my idea that this does not helps decrease historical accuracy is fairly right. If you essentaily change to less armor, but add more mechs for axis this merely changes th units you use, but does not decrease historic accuracy...In fact some may argue that it is less so...considering the extreme rarity of the pumas. Panthers were made in the 1000's (6000), and that panthers were used often in normandy. Geeshh...I wonder how many panthers were on the western front then pumas?

Anyway...I do not have anymore time right now to write this post, I will leave it as is and continue later.

Thanks for your time

[Mr. Clark]

I bet Steve runs around the office screaming a lot...