Point Values and other annoyances

[Predator]

I and a few friends who play locally often have Quick Battle tournaments at one of our houses or whatever. As of recent, we've gotten into attack/defense quick battles of the smallest possible point value (I forget what that is at the time.) However, one thing does bug both me and my friends who enjoy playing the allies. When in the context of small-point value games, aren't the Allies just a little overpowered by the number of units that can be bought by the Germans? I mean, in the setup I hate most, my friend will buy a VETERAN Fallschrimjager platoon and a few 20mm flak guns which are far too accurate and cause way too many casualties if you ask me. Now, compared to the American Rifle Platoon, the Fallschrimjager are far, far superior. Here's my question though, why are they so cheap? It seems, to me, after all the point value changes in CM, that it doesn't make much sense for German Infantry to cost less than Allied infantry. Maybe there's a historical point i'm missing, if so, someone please inform me. But, with the amount of damage that can be inflicted by such simple units as the 20mm flak gun and the high-powered Fallschrimjager, shouldn't they cost a little more? If anyone else has the same gripes, or if i'm missing some huge historical point that explains why German infantry has become so cheap, please inform me.

P.S.-Even with all these gripes about the Germans, i'm still looking for a PBEM opponent. Drop me a line if you're interested.

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

"Without struggle, there is no progress."

-Frederick Douglas

[Dirtweasle]

I'm really confused by this post...

Take a look at the size of the squads, the eqiupment included with them and then reevaluate the point costs. I think you'll see you're arguement does'nt hold much water. BTW - you might want to look at the Glider squads, they're a real good value if you ask me.

20mm is deadly accurate, it's supposed to be. It is also quite vulenerable to a little mortar fire, direct HE, and a coordinated infantry assualt.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Predator:

a few 20mm flak guns which are far too accurate and cause way too many casualties if you ask me.

I don't think they are. I think they are modeled quite well. These guns have a devastating effect in the ground-combat role. That is historically accurate. Today they are actually squad-level organic weapons in many armoured infantry units world-wide because of their effectiveness. Some people here think they are even under-modelled (not me, I like them just fine). Can you please elaborate why you think they are over-modelled, and cite some sources?

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Predator]

Well, first, to you Dirtweasel, I wonder if you've really taken a look at the point values and firepower of a Fallscrhimjager. Yes, the .50 Cal and the 60mm mortar are very useful weapons, but I beleive my argument still hold true because both weapons only hold a certain amount of of usefulness. First and foremost, i'm looking at all the units you've mentioned in May of 1945. Now, with the included Panzerfaust-100s and the Panzerschrek Team, i'm looking at 4 anti-tank teams here that can take out any piece of American armor. Along with their firepower (293 at 40m, 160 at 100m, 76 at 250m, way more than the glider squad) I think that makes them far more deadly. And remember, like I said, as a regular squad, and still only cost 154 points as opposed to the 164 for the Regular Glider Platoon. As veterans they are 187 points and still fit into any attack/defense (or, in my case probe/defense) battle. I have an immense respect for the .50 cal as a anti-light armor weapon and as for the 60mm mortar. However the 60mm will run out of ammo somewhat quickly, and not neccessarily while causing the casualties you want. Even worse, the .50 cal is a very, very slow moving weapon, so getting it into position is difficult. I believe, with the Panzerfaust-100s and the Panzerschrek teams, and the extended range of high firepower they can put up, that the Fallscrhimjager are a better, but unfairly less expensive platoon. Heck, even if i'm not comparing them to American units, they are still FAR too cheap for the firepower and anti-tank capability they bring to the battlefield.

As for you Germanboy, i'll take your word on that one. I also have seen 20mm guns demonstrated and yes, they are quite accurate. I guess my only gripe would be with the shrapnel, but, being a flak gun, it should throw shrapnel. And yes, i've taken those guns out many a time with simple mortar fire or infantry assaults. So I figure i'll let that issue die and concentrate on the Fallschrimjager.

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

"Without struggle, there is no progress."

-Frederick Douglas

[This message has been edited by Predator (edited 02-24-2001).]

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Predator:

Well, first, to you Dirtweasel, I wonder if you've really taken a look at the point values and firepower of a Fallscrhimjager.... SNIP ....Heck, even if i'm not comparing them to American units, they are still FAR too cheap for the firepower and anti-tank capability they bring to the battlefield.

Me first? I am honored.

Examined them, played with them and against them. I also have examined and played for and against practically every other unit. Below is an URL to some charts you may find interesting. I believe it is accurate, and well worth downloading. You may want to familiarize yourself with these charts before going further. I saw another chart that goes into more descritioon of the firepower ratios but having tried a search cannot find the correct thread...

http://users.erols.com/chare/cm/

Anyway, now that we are all on the same page, first notice that to begin with the Fallshrimjaegers have 10 men in each squad, better than the 9 you get with plain German Rifle '45, but the American Rifle and Glider squads, have 12 men. American Rifle Platoons indeed do not have as potent an organic ranged AT capability as the Germans. You have to purchase a baz team. Now a Glider Platoon costs 164 at regular and has 3 x 12 man squads each with 7Rifles, 2Carb, 2SMG,1BAR, and perhaps 1 or 2 rifle grenades and gammon bombs each squad. In addition the Glider Platoon, as you mentioned, comes with the Ma Deuce and a 60mm mortar. Where as a Fallschrimjaeger has only 10 men each in 3 squads, and just the Pschrek team. No organic HMG, no organic light mortars. Don't get me wrong, Fallshrimjagers are tough, but I cannot see where the point value is out of whack. The American Rifle Platoon only costs 120 and you get 3 x 12 man squads each with 9Rifles, 1SMG, and 2BAR. Each Squad also may have a couple of rifle grenades, while not as effective as the p-faust certainly the ratio seeem to be about the same as the chance of the german having a p-faust. It does not have any organic support save the 2 BAR, but the cost is pretty low.

What is really baffling to me, (and I don't mean to be inflammatory) is if as you say you notice this alleged inequity at the "smallest possible point value", (300 pts BTW) ..the allied player gets what 135 points for armor in a combined force selection? So the American can select maybe 1 M4, or M10, or M5 or worst maybe 2 M8 HMC. That of course would mean the American would only have maybe the ability to purchase 1 rifle platoon with support, maybe 2 platoons w/o supporting weapons. From the German side, at this point level it's impossible to select more than 1 real tank AFV, and at that they only get 60 pts to spend on armor when defending. You can only get I think 1 Lynx or 1 Wespe *IF* you select armor from the Heer, and still pick Fallschrimjagers as infantry. - OR - If you pick pure Fallschrimjagers you cannot get any armor at all as the Stug Assault guns are all more than 60 pts. Therefore Armor (to my estimation anyway) at the size of the battles you are talking about is either going to negligible, or nonexistent. I maintain that the lack of platoon level organic ranged AT weapons is not much to worry about for the American player at the size of these tiny battles.

I think the unit point balance is well thought out.

I am currently playing 7 or 8 E-mail games now, though would love to test your theory at some point. Perhaps if you're still interested next week we can give it a go.

[M. Bates]

The two man advantage of the American squad (12 versus 10) makes a difference.

Providing they only lose their M10s, a US squad is bearly impaired at all by being reduced to 9 men.

I don't have the figures to hand but I am sure that the firepower differential is not nearly so great at over 100m between US and Fallshirmjagers.

[FFE]

The point value of infantry is heavily gauged on # men/platoon. The total firepower does not seem to be a big factor. Based on this the allied infantry platoon (without external assets) tend to cost a lot more because of the extra 1, 2 or 3 men who are generally using lower firepower weapons.

In the larger games the Axis player tends to have more platoons of infantry, thus more rounds of ammunition, and generally more total infantry.

1k ME's using USA Vs German forces:

Allied allowed 560 pts of infantry; 120 pts/rifle platoon (regulars) ~~ 4 rifle platoons max

Totals: 144 men in squads; 16 men in hq's 640 (ammo)

Germans are allowed 620 pts of infantry; 93 pts/Volks SMG platoon (regulars)~~ 6 platoons max

Totals: 162 men in squads; 24 men in hq's; 960 (ammo)

The ammo difference is key and doesn't seem to be heavily factored into BTS equations. My little comparison demonstrates a significant infantry advantage for the German player in 1k ME's (if it relies heavily on infantry). AMMO The German player can bleed ammo from the allied player without thinking about the consequences, since the German player enjoys nearly 50% more total ammo! How often does this happen? A lot...

Another distinction to consider is # of total squads. A ratio of 3:2 (German:Allied) squads allows the German player to multi-directional attack allied infantry, which causes a morale hit on the allied infantry.

All these factors do not appear to be integrated into BTS's equations. If I were to guess, the point value equations are simplistic. I doubt any adjustments were made to infantry point values after the 'split into team' code was initiated. The team code benefits the cheaper infantry platoons, by allowing the fewest number of men to draw firepower (ammo) from the enemy.

Although many people like gauge total firepower as the principle means comparing infantry, I like to compare total ammo. Ammo is what makes infantry work effeciently. Once a player has successfully bled his/her opponent's infantry of most of their ammo, the high ammo player begins to enjoy a huge advantage. Artillery, armor, and other organic assets tend to equalize out against one another. What is left? Infantry Ammo.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by FFE:

Artillery, armor, and other organic assets tend to equalize out against one another. What is left? Infantry Ammo.

This is comparing apples to oranges. The Allied player can buy 60 points more of armour or arty for what the German player has. So he enjoys an advantage there.

Also, if that bothers you so much, why don't you play in the new unrestricted mode? Et voila, you can buy 1000 points of infantry for you ME.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[FFE]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

Also, if that bothers you so much, why don't you play in the new unrestricted mode? Et voila, you can buy 1000 points of infantry for you ME.

You're somewhat missing my point. Give the German player the same number of infantry points in a 1K ME (560) as the allied player and he/she can STILL buy 6 platoons of infantry. This cancels your difference in point evaluation.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

The price relationship between the Fallschirmjaegers and the U.S. Paratroops seems close enough, to me. The Germans probably get their fausts more or less free, but that is about it. But both are underpriced and thus bargains, compared to the standard infantry types.

The proper comparison is the paratroop platoon at 180 points to the FJ at 154. The infantry firepower of the two groups in the *same*. The U.S. just have their MMG 3-man teams seperated, which makes them slower than the organic MGs in the FJ squads, but also makes for 2 units on the map, harder to suppress, etc.

See, firepower at 40, 100, 250 yards are -

FJ - 293 / 160 / 76

Para - 231 / 95 / 35

MMG-3 - 84 / 66 / 40

P+M - 315 / 161 / 75

Both platoons get a zook, though the German one is more capable of course. The Germans also get fausts, giving them much better AT capability overall. The U.S. gets a 60mm mortar, and 30% more men.

How much is 30% more men with the same firepower, worth? Offensively, the firepower is the obvious issue. But for taking fire, the number of men is what matters. Since both play a role, the effect of each side alone is only half the story. A good approximation of fighting power is then (firepower x men> ^ .5, the geometric mean of the two. The idea being, if the firepower edge on one side is equal to the depth for casualties edge on the other, the fighting power should be about the same. So, 30% more people but the same firepower, should mean ~14% more fighting power (1.3 ^ .5).

Well, take the 180 cost of the U.S. para platoon, divide by that 1.14 "depth benefit", and you get 158. The cost of the FJ platoon in 154. Close enough, and a 60mm mortar plus a zook are probably worth more than one schreck.

The Germans get free fausts, that is about the extent of any "bargain" difference. In June-July 44 that is 3 faust-30s and doesn't matter too much. Late war it is a bigger advantage because they have enough range to actually hit things. If the FJ platoon cost 160 it might be a better ratio, but it is close to right however you cut it.

But if you compare the power of the FJ to regular U.S. rifle 44 platoons, the relationship is more obviously "skew". With a zook added, the U.S. rifle platoon costs 134 as regulars, vs. 154 for the FJ. But the FJs have 40-70% more firepower depending on the range, call it 55% average, while the rifle platoon has only 17% more men. The FJs therefore have roughly 4/3rds the combat power of the U.S. platoon, plus the advantage of a Screck over a Zook, plus fausts. That suggests a price of more like 180-195 for the FJ platoon, not 154.

This doesn't just mean the FJ is underpriced, though. So is the U.S. para platoon. Or the U.S. rifle platoon is overpriced. More likely, a little of both - the U.S. rifle platoon might be worth 115 and the FJ platoon 175 and the U.S. para platoon 200. The U.S. rifle platoon shouldn't be lowered further than that, or it gets too cheap relative to the smaller VG infantry platoons.

But all of them are within ~10-15% of the right prices, and it is both sides paratroops that are the real infantry bargain, compared to rival infantry types.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by FFE:

The point value of infantry is heavily gauged on # men/platoon. The total firepower does not seem to be a big factor. Based on this the allied infantry platoon (without external assets) tend to cost a lot more because of the extra 1, 2 or 3 men who are generally using lower firepower weapons.

The US `45 Rifle squads of 12 men have 9 Rifles, 2 BARs, and 1 SMG. It is rated as having a firepower of 230 at 40 meters and 124 at 100 meters for a cost of 129 Pts for three of these plus the HQ. The 10 man Fallschrimjager has a Firepower of 293 at 40 meters and 160 @ 100m and costs 154 for the 2 squads plus the Pschrek team. That is a difference of 25 points, no? The Pschreck cost 23 points by it self... What am I missing here? To me there is a trade-off, or a balance of costs vs capability and survivability, not an inequity.

Originally posted by FFE:

...In the larger games the Axis player tends to have more platoons of infantry, thus more rounds of ammunition, and generally more total infantry.

1k ME's using USA Vs German forces:

Allied allowed 560 pts of infantry; 120 pts/rifle platoon (regulars) ~~ 4 rifle platoons max

Totals: 144 men in squads; 16 men in hq's 640 (ammo)

Germans are allowed 620 pts of infantry; 93 pts/Volks SMG platoon (regulars)~~ 6 platoons max

Totals: 162 men in squads; 24 men in hq's; 960 (ammo)

The ammo difference is key and doesn't seem to be heavily factored into BTS equations. My little comparison demonstrates a significant infantry advantage for the German player in 1k ME's (if it relies heavily on infantry). AMMO The German player can bleed ammo from the allied player without thinking about the consequences, since the German player enjoys nearly 50% more total ammo! How often does this happen? A lot...

That is interesting... Had'nt thought of it that way. Are you sure the ammo loadouts are not different US vs German?

Originally posted by FFE:

Another distinction to consider is # of total squads. A ratio of 3:2 (German:Allied) squads allows the German player to multi-directional attack allied infantry, which causes a morale hit on the allied infantry.

All these factors do not appear to be integrated into BTS's equations. If I were to guess, the point value equations are simplistic. I doubt any adjustments were made to infantry point values after the 'split into team' code was initiated. The team code benefits the cheaper infantry platoons, by allowing the fewest number of men to draw firepower (ammo) from the enemy.

Although many people like gauge total firepower as the principle means comparing infantry, I like to compare total ammo. Ammo is what makes infantry work effeciently. Once a player has successfully bled his/her opponent's infantry of most of their ammo, the high ammo player begins to enjoy a huge advantage. Artillery, armor, and other organic assets tend to equalize out against one another. What is left? Infantry Ammo.

I've been playing with a handicap!

Seriously though even if you are correct I don't think you can distill out the mortars, and other support weapons. I can't be that good of a player to win ofter with being handicapped playing the US side. Somefink does'nt add up and I'm too lazy to figure out the numbers. If what you are saying is true, the US side should not win evenly matched games. In practise I know that not to prove out.

On the other hand if you are correct, and if the ammo allotment is the same, that would seem to me to be an ahistorical situation IIRC. Weren't the Allies supplied alot better than the Germans at this point? I do not have the knowledge to source that, just my impression.

*** EDITED FOR CLARITY ***

[This message has been edited by Dirtweasle (edited 02-24-2001).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by FFE:

You're somewhat missing my point. Give the German player the same number of infantry points in a 1K ME (560) as the allied player and he/she can STILL buy 6 platoons of infantry. This cancels your difference in point evaluation.

First of all - it is not a problem of point allocation. If you have a problem with that, go for unrestricted, and both sides get exactly the same.

Second - you are only evaluating two factors. Ammo load-out and FP. As Jason correctly points out, and as I have repeatedly said when people complained about the high price of US squads, you are overlooking survivability. In a firefight you are being shot at. Look at your firefight dynamically, and you will see that the US squad will do much better than your analysis suggests. Also, if you go below 40m into infighting territory, the 12 guys usually get the better of the German squad, again because they have higher staying power. Just looking at two factors out of a number (at least four) will give you the incorrect conclusions you arrived at.

The ammo difference is not always key, that is just incorrect.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[M. Bates]

WOW some great posts on infantry power!!

I for one am glad to study it because German players seem very fond of their FJ Companies.

[FFE]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

I've been playing with a handicap!

LOL My comparison is only dealing with ammo, not Firepower. In QB's all infantry squads start with 40 ammo points.

Originally posted by Germanboy:

First ... Second ...

1) Unrestricted is not the solution. Unrestricted is not the end of all balancing issues.

2) I'm not comparing firepower. As a matter of fact in all my posts I have steered away from the firepower issue as a means of balancing. Generally one 'normal' german infantry platoon cannot defeat one allied infantry platoon, head to head, in close quarters. I've fought enough opponents to know this. However re-addressing my earlier posts, this sequence of combat tends to disfavor allied infantry platoon given an equal point value infantry force. Because it depletes the allied infantry platoon of its ammo points. I've sited the ratio of 3:2 in an earlier post with concerns of ME's, which I would like to bring up once more. As a rule of thumb given equal point values, the German player will tend to have 50% more ammo and 50% more squads. This advantage is invisible to normal play and is not figured into the point values. And, the German player will tend to have better platoon HQ's because (you guessed it) he/she has 50% more platoons.

[Subvet]

Originally posted by Predator:

When in the context of small-point value games, aren't the Allies just a little overpowered by the number of units that can be bought by the Germans? I mean, in the setup I hate most, my friend will buy a VETERAN Fallschrimjager platoon...

I just played a tournament game similar to this a few days ago. It was an 800 point ME between the British Airborne and the German Fallschirmjager. I had the choice of sides and picked the allies. After the game my opponent mentioned that the Falls. units were over priced. I went with the allies because they could just plain buy more men. I often find that the winner in many games is the guy who can buy the most infantry. In this case the Germans could purchase 5 platoons with 150 men (not including headquarters and support) and the Brits could get 2 companies with 180. We drew the opposite conclusion than you did, so maybe the points are right on the money.

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

Craiger

All your victory flag are belong to me

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by FFE:

I've sited the ratio of 3:2 in an earlier post with concerns of ME's, which I would like to bring up once more. As a rule of thumb given equal point values, the German player will tend to have 50% more ammo and 50% more squads. This advantage is invisible to normal play and is not figured into the point values. And, the German player will tend to have better platoon HQ's because (you guessed it) he/she has 50% more platoons.

Sorry, I still don't see how this matters. If you play an unrestricted ME (regular exeprience) (which you can), you can buy 4 US platoons of infantry for 480 points. You can buy 4 German Rifle squads for 420 points. If you buy Fallschirmjaeger you can buy three German squads for 462 points, giving the US player a lot more infantry (and ammo). Sorry, I still fail to understand your point. The points for an unrestricted ME are 500/500/500/500/131/0 for both sides. I am at a total loss why you continue to think that unrestricted is not a solution to your concerns?

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[FFE]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

I am at a total loss why you continue to think that unrestricted is not a solution to your concerns?

Because in my four unrestricted games, I have experienced many bad things. Unrestricted QB's are purely a guessing game. One side might take heavy armor, while the other side takes heavy infantry + 2 81mm's and does the smoke -> charge routine. In two of my unresticted games the battle wasn't much fun at all. Most players realize that infantry is the main factor in game winning decisions. Generally it's the last person with infantry who will win, not the last piece of armor.

I just ran a "STUPID" test, putting 5 Volks SMG platoons in woods opposite 4 US Rifle platoons @ 100 meters. The platoon HQ's were edited down to 0 bonus in all categories.

The SMG platoons won the firefight, even though the battle was 90m-120m (120 meters for the fringe platoons). Now ask yourself how could SMG platoons wins a firefight with US Rifle platoons @ 100 meters? Please remember, this is a "DUMB" test and doesn't necessarily reflect in-game situations.

1) The German player has more ammo, because he has more squads

2) The US Rifle platoons were sometimes pinned due to fire from two different positions.

[This message has been edited by FFE (edited 02-24-2001).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by FFE:

Because in my four unrestricted games, I have experienced many bad things. Unrestricted QB's are purely a guessing game.

FFE, now we are on to something. So in effect the problem is not with the game and the points, but with the way people are playing it. In which case I can only recommend that you have a look around the forum for lime-minded people (i.e. who don't like the 'Ladder-smoke-charge' routine) and continue to enjoy it. Works for me.

Regarding your tests, I or anyone else can run controlled tests that prove absolutely nothing (as you rightly recognise). What counts are in-battle situations. The last figures (admittedly from a long time ago) from the RD ladder suggested the game was even, with both sides enjoying roughly the same win percentages. I would be interested in a more recent analysis, but I would be surprised if they looked much different.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Predator]

Wow..... certainly wasn't expecting my gripes to get this much response. I'll do what I can to respond.

First, Subvet, not to be offensive or flame you but I don't know what version of CM you're playing or whether you're playing CM at all. My experiences with the game as of recent have always left me wondering "Why do the Germans get more Infantry allocation points than the allies do?" Of all the posts, I probably disagree with yours the strongest, since, as I said, i've never run into a situation like that.

Back to my orignal point (and adressing the replies to it) I do not beleive that the two extra soldiers in the Rifle 44 or 45 squads are making a major difference here. My point is, and shall remain, that for their heightened firepower, Anti-Tank capabilities (i've never seen a Allied tank shrug off a Faust, much less a Schrek, while i've seen German Tanks take a Bazooka hit and keep on runnin')the Fallschrimjager platoon is far too cheap. I'd love to go into further number-crunching detail, but, I won't, I'll just stick to the basics of my argument.

I know I originally wanted to keep from comparing, but, as it seems that's the only way I can prove a point, I will for now.

However, my point here is that, because they come with organic, extremely powerful anti-tank weapons and have such amazing firepower, the Fallschrimjager platoons are too cheap. I've gone against them many a time and I wonder whether the people who have posted that the extra two men in the Allied squads makes up for the difference have ever actually tried to take down a Fallschrimjager platoon. I will say now, that two men does not make the difference. They simply end up becoming two more casualties for the Fallschrimjager to rack up. Notably, while the already-mentioned American Paratroop Squad carries 5 M1s, 2 Carbines, 2 Tommy Guns, and 1 BAR, they do, not, like the Fallscrimjager, carry 2 LMGs around with them. Moreover, if you've noticed, those LMGs carry quite a bit of punch, even over distance.

Now, starting with the anti-tank weaponry packaged with each squad, I must wholeheartedly disagree with anyone who compares the Rifle Grenade to the Panzerfaust. For one reason, in well over 100 battles, I have seen Rifle Grenades be used ONCE. Gammon bombs 3 times, Det Packs twice. I cannot count, however, how often I have heard the SCHOOM sound of yet another Faust firing off. If anything, one could (not saying there should be, just saying could) say that there should be an increase in price on the German units because they use their organic special weaponry.

As far as the point value thing goes, I know i'm probably repeating myself, but for two LMGs, two MP40s, two SMGs and 3 K98 Rifles, the Fallschrimjager platoon is underpriced. For the amount of firepower they can put out and sustain over distace, for the organic weaponry they come with and its effectiveness they are too cheap. Simply, they fit into any type of game and can mow down any Allied squad. Like I said before, no those two extra men don't make a difference, and I really have to wonder if you've played many games as the Allies if you hold to that belief.

Unlike the Allies, the Germans are not slaved to as much quantity of support, and that is something I cannot change. But, for the 405th time, for their functionality, power, the Fallschrimjager are too cheap, and fit into battles too well.

(I'm sure this is probably a bit convoluted, but bear with me here, this is my first intellectualized post. Glad i've at least got good debaters to go toe to toe with.)

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

"Without struggle, there is no progress."

-Frederick Douglas

[This message has been edited by Predator (edited 02-24-2001).]

[JoePrivate]

Predator, you might find this thread interesting, Doing some Numbers

[Predator]

Thanks for the thread link Joe, allthough I think in this situation it isn't exactly like their argument. I personally believe the game has been given a German tilt, with the continual nerfing of American support and armor. (Nerf- i.e. Nerfing, Nerfed. Def: When a weapon/unit has its effectiveness reduced to such a point that it would be better replaced by a soft, squishy Nerf toy.) This problem with the Fallschrimjager is just a sign of this continuing trend.

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

"Without struggle, there is no progress."

-Frederick Douglas

[chrisl]

Originally posted by Predator:

Thanks for the thread link Joe, allthough I think in this situation it isn't exactly like their argument. I personally believe the game has been given a German tilt, with the continual nerfing of American support and armor.

LOL. There's plenty of people who will claim the opposite-- that BTS keeps nerfing the German stuff (esp the tanks) so that the übertanks are killable. I personally think things are pretty balanced, and tend to stay away from the expensive stuff, because it still has plenty of weaknesses, and once it's destroyed it's just expensive scrap.

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

"If you can taste the difference between caviar on a cracker and ketchup on a Kit-Kat while blindfolded, you have not had enough aquavit to be ready for lutefisk." (stolen from some web page about lutefisk)

[Predator]

Originally posted by chrisl:

LOL. There's plenty of people who will claim the opposite-- that BTS keeps nerfing the German stuff (esp the tanks) so that the übertanks are killable. I personally think things are pretty balanced, and tend to stay away from the expensive stuff, because it still has plenty of weaknesses, and once it's destroyed it's just expensive scrap.

LOL, it's good to see someone still has a in-the-middle perspective. Maybe i'm just peeved since I don't have a M16 Halftrack to work with while they get Jagdtigers.

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

"Without struggle, there is no progress."

-Frederick Douglas

[Tiger]

First, Subvet,

not to be offensive or flame you but I don't know what version of CM you're playing or whether you're playing CM at all.

umm...right.

My experiences with the game as of recent have always left me wondering "Why do the Germans get more Infantry allocation points than the allies do?" Of all the posts, I probably disagree with yours the strongest, since, as I said, i've never run into a situation like that.

Err...what game are you playinig? In a QB combined arms, the Germans get 310 infantry points, the Americans get 420.

With this the Americans can get two parachute platoons while the Germans can get two Fallschirmjager platoons.

With this the Americans can alternately get three Infantry platoons or three infantry and one weapons platoon.

What do they get in each platoon?

The American parachute platoons gets an hq unit and three squads of 10 men each. In addition, the platoon gets 3 M1919 MGs, a bazooka, and a 60mm mortar. I looked at one of the units in the platoon and it had 1 gammon bomb and three rifle gernades.

Now the German Fallschirmjager platoon had an hq unit and 3 squads of 10 men each. In addition they get a panzerschreck. That's it. Checking one of the units in the platoons reveals one panzerfaust. One of the other units has two panzerfausts.

Now for the American Infantry platoon, you get 12 men in each squad. Add the Weapons platoon and you get 2 MGs, 1 .50 cal heavy MG, 3 bazookas and 3 60mm mortars, plus the extra Platoon HQ.

that for their heightened firepower, Anti-Tank capabilities (i've never seen a Allied tank shrug off a Faust, much less a Schrek, while i've seen German Tanks take a Bazooka hit and keep on runnin')

As shown above, the American Para platoon has slightly more if not equal AT capability as the Fallschirmjager platoon. The problem with panzerfausts is that they are quite inaccurate at any range greater than 30 meters. I've read quotes somewhere that say the American bazooka could not penetrate any German tank frontally (Steel Inferno I believe and yes I know, with a grain of salt). It's certainly a fact Predator, German tanks have a bit more armour than Shermans. The Churchill VII has decent armor on the front though, IIRC.

the Fallschrimjager platoon is far too cheap. I'd love to go into further number-crunching detail, but, I won't, I'll just stick to the basics of my argument.

I know I originally wanted to keep from comparing, but, as it seems that's the only way I can prove a point, I will for now.

However, my point here is that, because they come with organic, extremely powerful anti-tank weapons and have such amazing firepower, the Fallschrimjager platoons are too cheap. I've gone against them many a time and I wonder whether the people who have posted that the extra two men in the Allied squads makes up for the difference have ever actually tried to take down a Fallschrimjager platoon. I will say now, that two men does not make the difference. They simply end up becoming two more casualties for the Fallschrimjager to rack up. Notably, while the already-mentioned American Paratroop Squad carries 5 M1s, 2 Carbines, 2 Tommy Guns, and 1 BAR, they do, not, like the Fallscrimjager, carry 2 LMGs around with them. Moreover, if you've noticed, those LMGs carry quite a bit of punch, even over distance.

Uh hunh. here's the firepower for the American Para units: 231, 95, 35, 12, 0.

Now add the 3 M1919 MGS that come intergral in the para platoon: 84, 66, 40, 27, 0. That's multiplied by three, not to forget the 60mm mortar which the German Fallschirmjager platoon does not come with, nor do they come with the Three MGs.

Here's the firepower of the Fallschirmjager units: 293, 160, 76, 39, 0.

And here's the firepower of the American infantry units: 209, 105, 45, 17, 0.

Here's the additional firepower you get with the weapons platoon:

Two MGs at 84, 66, 40, 27, 0 (that's two of these)

One .50 cal Heavy MG at: 110, 88, 60, 47, 30

Now add three bazookas and three 60mm mortars.

"Where's the beef"? With the American Rifle Infantry and their Weapons Platoon (bought under Infantry but using mostly support points).

If you want to compare units do it correctly. Don't compare apples to oranges.

Compare apples and apples. But your apples also come with oranges. Comparing American Para units with Fallschirmjager units show the American units with a definite firepower advantage with there 3 organic MGs, Bazooka and Mortar, to the Fallschirmjager's Panzerfaust.

Now, starting with the anti-tank weaponry packaged with each squad, I must wholeheartedly disagree with anyone who compares the Rifle Grenade to the Panzerfaust. For one reason, in well over 100 battles, I have seen Rifle Grenades be used ONCE. Gammon bombs 3 times, Det Packs twice. I cannot count, however, how often I have heard the SCHOOM sound of yet another Faust firing off. If anything, one could (not saying there should be, just saying could) say that there should be an increase in price on the German units because they use their organic special weaponry.

You obviously do not play the Germans very often. Panzerfausts are very inaccurate and miss more often than not. Another problem is trying to get the units to fire their fausts. They usually won't fire at anything more than 20-30 meters, usually won't fire them until 10-15 meters away. This I know from playing the germans mostly for the last seven months. If you're getting your tanks within 10-15 meters of my infantry or Fallschirmjager units, you need to work on your tactics some.

As far as the point value thing goes, I know i'm probably repeating myself, but for two LMGs, two MP40s, two SMGs and 3 K98 Rifles, the Fallschrimjager platoon is underpriced. For the amount of firepower they can put out and sustain over distace, for the organic weaponry they come with and its effectiveness they are too cheap. Simply, they fit into any type of game and can mow down any Allied squad. Like I said before, no those two extra men don't make a difference, and I really have to wonder if you've played many games as the Allies if you hold to that belief.

I've been around here long enough to know the "sour grapes syndrome".

Unlike the Allies, the Germans are not slaved to as much quantity of support, and that is something I cannot change. But, for the 405th time, for their functionality, power, the Fallschrimjager are too cheap, and fit into battles too well.

Sorry but how long have you been playing? In Summer-Autumn of 1944 the German infantry companies come with their own organic support weapons. After that you have to start buying all your support weapons (MGs, mortars) seperately, and your units have less men (9 then later 8 men per squad, IIRC).

(I'm sure this is probably a bit convoluted, but bear with me here, this is my first intellectualized post. Glad i've at least got good debaters to go toe to toe with.)

Don't give up your day job

If you're going to start an "intellectual debate, don't start off with hurt feelings and start insulting people simply because they do not agree with you.

I apologize for this but this simply seems like a case of sour grapes. If you're getting whupped playing the allies then learn to use all that firepower and stop blaming history.

-John

[lassner.1]

Sorry Preditor, I cannot agree with you at all. I have been on the receiving end of allied arms too often, and played too often.