Point Values and other annoyances

[Predator]

Well, I may bellyache but that's one helluva rebuttal Tiger. Sour grapes it is then I guess. Didn't mean to insult anyone though, guess I got a little hot under the collar. Perhaps I shall pick up the Germans more often then, try to see it from the other side. Lord knows i've played the Allies enough.

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

"Without struggle, there is no progress."

-Frederick Douglas

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Predator:

...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. *SNIP* ...and I really have to wonder if you've played many games as the Allies if you hold to that belief.

I guess I must be better at this than I thought. Because I've played this game practically endlessly for months now, and done dozens of PBEM games with all sorts of people. Honestly, I know the FJ are tough and respect their capabilities, but have'nt been mauled by 'em much. You just learn to stand off a bit and bring down some mortar fire on 'em, then pick 'em off.

Now having spent the last 40 or so minutes going through force selections and looking carefully at the German fallguys and trying to craft a witty rebuttal. I am beginning to see your point here... It's especially noticable to me when you get to the CO size engagement @ 600 pts for a QB Meeting engagement selcting unrestricted force type. Heck you can get a whole FJ company with off board 81mm, and still afford 2 of those 20mm AA guns, and a truck to tote one of 'em around with. Maybe you are on to somefink here... maybe they don't cost enough.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

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.

Just on that point "Deutschejunge", it will be very interesting to see if the Allies are able to win on a roughly 50% basis with this latest round of the Tournament 2000 Rugged Defence board where it's an all infantry Meeting Engagement at 1,000 points each. What I found in chosing the forces for each side was the much greater flexibility of the Germans which should (in my view) prove decisive. ie If you go with the Poms you're forced to accept the mighty Piat and 2 inch mortar and if you chose the Yanks on a company basis you simply don't get enough infantry squads due to the 3 accompanying Bazooka teams and the ultra slow 50 calibre.

The bottom line on infantry is that the German side, in my view, has a slight edge due to their much greater flexibility with their vast array of choices when compared with the Allies, who have to accept more generic choices which don't necessarily ideally fulfill the specific scenario parameters.

Regards

Jim R.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

Just on that point "Deutschejunge", it will be very interesting to see if the Allies are able to win on a roughly 50% basis with this latest round of the Tournament 2000 Rugged Defence board where it's an all infantry Meeting Engagement at 1,000 points each.

Which is probably why, IRL they had a lot of tanks, arty, planes and Ultra decodings to help them on the way.

To be honest, I would not judge the quality of the CMBO simulation in terms of balance by a tournament consisting of all infantry battles. Realistically (and realism is what CMBO is aiming to achieve after all), most of the battles would probably have to be Allied combined arms versus German infantry.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Subvet]

Originally posted by Predator:

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.

Yes, I'm playing CM and the latest version. Set up an infantry QB with Brit. Airborne vs. Fallschirmjager in a ME with 800 points. The Germans can buy five platoons, which will cost them 770 points. The Brits can get two companies of Parachute infantry for 758. That means the Germans have 150 men (not including HQ units and support) and the Brits have 180! The Fallschirmjager had an edge in firepower (293 vs. 248 at 40 meters) but the Brits came with mortars and got 30 more men. Not only that but the Brits could afford a nice 75mm infantry gun to go with that while the Germans couldn't. At the end of the game my opponent said that the Fallschirmjager were overpriced. I'm not saying that they are, but I don't think they are too cheap either!

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

Craiger

All your victory flag are belong to me

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Subvet:

Yes, I'm playing CM and the latest version. Set up an infantry QB with Brit. Airborne vs. Fallschirmjager in a ME with 800 points.

When these two go toe to toe, the Brits have a very good chance to just rip the FJs apart. Just ask Bauhaus. The British para batallion (Regular 1,283, Vet 1,494) is the bargain bin sales of close-range Allied firepower in the game.

I really think that if you have trouble winning with either side in the game, you have to work on your tactics, and stop blaming the parameters. I know that when I lose, it is because I suck. Because I am equally bad regardless of whether I have Germans or US.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Well, Tiger is right about U.S. paras, as I have already explained at length. Their MMGs, organic to every platoon and 1 per squads, fully make up for the squad firepower difference compared to the FJs.

But this is not true of the U.S. rifles, the standard infantry. Even when their weapons platoons are included, as in a company buy. As I said before, it is the paratroop forces of both sides that give considerably more bang for the buck, compared to the regular infantry.

If you buy a U.S. infantry company (or 3 rifle and 1 weapons platoon - same difference really), then no, the 50 cal and 2 MMGs do not make up the firepower difference compared to 3 FJ platoons. The FJs still have ~45% more firepower at ranges out to 250 yards, which is the stuff that counts. The U.S. force has 40% more total men in it, which is probably meant to balance this out.

But a U.S. rifle company costs 15% more than 3 FJ platoons. The FJ platoon also moves faster, since it has only 3 schrecks that are at all slow, and it has much better AT capabililty with 3 screcks and 9-18 fausts vs. 3 zooks and a few rifle grenades.

The only benefits the U.S. force has on the other side, are numbers of men and the 3x60mm mortars. If the German player envys the mortars, he can add 2x81mm for less than the cost difference in the two formations, and get more total HE blast (~50x19 vs. ~90x6). Then he has dramatically more firepower in every respect, and spent slightly less. All the rifle company has on the other side is a larger number of men.

The U.S. or Brit paras are fully a match for the FJ. But the line rifles aren't, even with their infantry weapons included.

Another comparison that has been made is the power of the VGs with their smaller squads, in a larger number of platoons. I too like the VGs and find them effective, and this is part of the reason why. The main reason is the SMGs, which have to be used in close obviously. But here I find the previous arguments on the thread overblown.

Effectively, one fellow was simply saying "because I can buy squads of 8 men instead of 12 men, and more of them, I have more ammo-shots and I win". Well, if you think so, then don't buy squads buy U.S. MMGs and German HMGs. They have ~2 times the ammo, better firepower at range, and only 5-6 men per team. So you get more shots and you win. Right?

The VGs use 8 man squads but then SMGs to make up for it. This gives them different characteristics than rifle squads. It means they have no firepower to speak of at medium range (~250 meters) and are quite sensitive to losses compared to standard squads. At close range, they have more firepower despite fewer men and can remain combat-effect as a squad even with 2-3 men down, practically team sized.

They fight best #1 when they haven't taken losses and #2 when the range is <80 yards. They are marginal as infantry out to ~150 yards, but don't do anything beyond it. Incidentally, this enforces a kind of fire discipline that is often sensible anyway and conserves ammo. VGs are "even more infantry" than infantry is already, in a sense - "right there" combat power.

Their weaknesses show up when they are shot up from far away, and only engaged closely after they've been thinned, exploiting their small squad size and lack of range. Any artificial test that masks these weaknesses will overrate their combat power. On the other side, superb handling of them can get lots of close-up bang for a small buck.

This should all be obvious, but I spell it out because one fellow seemed to find their virtue in merely being a cheaper platoon and therefore having "more shots". If you want ammo, buy MGs.

If you think cheap shots are the ticket, put a platoon of VG SMG up against 5 U.S. MMG teams, both sides regulars. The U.S. MMGs cost 3 points less, and they've got 2.7 times the ammo. They've also got 2.7 times the firepower per shot at 250 yards, 20% more at 100 yards, though only half as much at 40 yards - and slightly more men (30 vs. 28) in more seperate targets.

[FFE]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

If you want ammo, buy MGs.

Yes and no. MG's do indeed enjoy more ammo, but sacrifice fast mobility. MG's are listed under "Support" rather than "Infantry." One can buy up infantry to max and toss in a few MG's, which is routine.

Any scenario or QB with short range visibility indirectly bolsters the value if SMG's platoons several fold. This is unaccounted for in the point values and only benefits the cheaper SMG platoons.

My comparison deals only with infantry and presumes support, armor, artillery, etc... will cancel out, which it generally does. When the side with more infantry depletes his/her opponent's infantry of most of their ammo, then the higher ammo side enjoys a benefit. The higher ammo side can manuever more securely and launch assaults with greater expectations.

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Well, Tiger is right about U.S. paras, as I have already explained at length. Their MMGs, organic to every platoon and 1 per squads, fully make up for the squad firepower difference compared to the FJs.

Yep. Looking at the *combined arms* rather than just isolating certain units and comparing them is the best way to analyse match-ups.

But be careful when pitting US paras against FJs. This can be one of the worst pairings you can have for the US side.

There are two reasons. One is the lack of armor. FJs have access to StuGs. US Paras do not. The other is the extra support points that must be expended in order to buy infantry (you always get organic MGs and mortars within each US platoon) ends up restricting the number of infantry units you can buy. Even buying them in separate platoons doesn't help the US player out much.

Here are the points allowed for a 1000pt combined arms meeting engagement:

Side Inf Sup Veh Arm Arty Fort

Axis 620 248 250 200 150 0

Allied 560 252 200 300 187 0

The German player can afford (all Regular units) 2 StuGs, 1 FJ Co (comes with organic 81mm FO), 1 FJ Plt, 1 81mm FO, and 6LMG.

The US player can either buy one Para Company or 4 Glider Platoons. Because of the limited number of support points, you can't afford a full Glider company. The 4 Glider Plts are better than the 3 Paras that come with the Company, so I'll go with that. Max out the Arty category with either a 75mm and 81mm FO or a single 4.2in FO. You can't get any armor, but you still have a few points for support, so get 1 M1919 and 4 Zooks to hopefully deal with enemy armor. You now have 83 points left, and nowhere to spend it (except on a few Jeeps).

You could substitute 1 57mm AT (and a Jeep to tow it with) for 3 Zooks, but I don't think that would be a good exchange most of the time.

Your infantry is reasonably matched up (especially when you consider the US support units). And the Arty is fairly even. But the lack of armor is a real concern for the Allies, especially if you're not playing at night or in fog.

Also, the German player has access to HTs. So you can substitute 3 251/1 HTs, an 81mm Mortar and an extra LMG in place of those two StuGs if you wish. The US player doesn't have this flexibility.

The lack of tanks and the limits on support points can really hamper an Allied player's choices when playing with paratroops. Especially when facing a well-balanced FJ force.

Paratroops are not necessarily the automatic answer when facing FJs.

Incidentally, the US player can make things a bit easier on himself by restricting the force type to 'American Airborne'. This will give you 1000pts for infantry, 500 for support, and 225 for arty in a 1000pt ME. You still won't get any armor, though.

BTW, anyone using those charts should re-download them. After reading this thread, I found and fixed a few errors in the German weapons column in the infantry chart. Sorry 'bout that.

- Chris

[This message has been edited by Wolfe (edited 02-25-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

With a combined arms force type and no armor, sure the points allowed can get silly. Take infantry not combined arms when you take U.S. airborne. If you have to fit inside the combined arms point limits, then you will be most limited by the "support" total, and the lumpiness of artillery modules - which will have different effects with different point totals, meet or probe or attack, etc.

For the specified case, don't take all glider, they are too heavy on slow teams and too light on faster ones that are usually more effective in practice. I'd recommend, all regulars -

2 paratroop platoon

2 glider platoon

1 added zook

4.2" FO -or- 81mm + 75mm FO

3-4 Jeep MG (4 w/ 4.2" FO)

2 Jeep

That gives you ~200 infantrymen, and the following useful mix of weapons -

12 squads

6 MMGs

4 60mm Mortars

3 Zooks

2 .50 cal (mot) + 3-4 Jeep MG

~6000 indirect HE blast

The only weak suit is anti-tank, with just 3 zooks and 24 rounds of their ammo. But in a typical case, you will also get 5-10 gammon bombs and 20-30 rifle grenades. Light armor is no worry at all with that weapon mix (including the .50 cals), but sure, heavy armor is tougher for paras, simply because they have no tanks.

The transport jeeps, incidentally, can help overcome the problem of the speed of the dismounted .50 cal teams, and can also reposition pairs of the mortars when that is more urgent. Just keep them on your side of pieces of cover. You usually don't want those heavy weapons too close to the enemy anyway.

Put one platoon in an overwatch role with the .50s and either 1 mortar or all of them as you prefer. Give each of the other platoons 2 MMGs and a zook, and 1 mortar or not as you prefer to centralize those or not. Each forward platoon can have a Jeep MG in support, or you can use those as a "pack" in your backfield to fire from range then scoot to the next target.

That force has the same firepower as the FJ force you outlined, at all ranges from 40 to 500 yards, to within a few % either way. The indirect firepower is also about the same, ~6000 total blast. The U.S. also has the light mortars. The German strength is obviously the 2 StuGs. In return for it, the U.S. paratroops have 30% more men, and thus greater depth to take casualties.

Again, the para forces are not mismatched. It is the para forces on all sides that give more infantry combat power for the same cost, compared to the non-para infantry. That is partially made up by the other types having more access to armor and heavy weapons.

Yes, it is annoying to hit a limit on "support" at 1/4 of your force. And arguably, the artillery limit is too low. But the conclusion is just to use the "infantry" force type, not "combined arms", when you don't have any armored vehicles, nothing in the "armor" section at all, and only jeeps in the "vehicles" section.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

A trivial piece to add here, about the German VJ force proposed. The previous fellow suggested 6 LMGs. As a screening and deception element that can be sensible (to baffle the enemy with "inf?" signs), but normally it is a better idea to spend the same points on 2 HMGs instead.

The cost is essentially the same. The firepower may appear the same (roughly), but this is an illusion. The HMG continues to put out the same firepower after 2 men have been hit, while one of the LMGs would be silenced by then. The HMG also has several times the ammo, and thus can cumulatively put out far more firepower than 3 LMGs, which only carry ammo for 25 shots apiece.

You may think the LMGs will make up for this by covering more places, but this is again an illusion. They do not individually have enough firepower to reliably break enemy squads, even in the open, so places "covered" by them, aren't. Unless the idea is deception, 2 HMGs is a much better "buy" than 6 LMGs for the Germans.

[Soddball]

I wonder whether it could be the case that German units were geared to work in small groups, whilst allied units were geared to work in larger combined arms groups?

If that was the case, then on smaller point values a german unit would be more cohesive and would consequently have an advantage, and on larger battles the allies would be one step ahead?

(I dunno, I'm still waiting for my full version of the game to arrive, just my 2p worth)

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

"Woof!Woof!"

That's my other dog impression.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

When these two go toe to toe, the Brits have a very good chance to just rip the FJs apart. Just ask Bauhaus. The British para batallion (Regular 1,283, Vet 1,494) is the bargain bin sales of close-range Allied firepower in the game.

I really think that if you have trouble winning with either side in the game, you have to work on your tactics, and stop blaming the parameters. I know that when I lose, it is because I suck. Because I am equally bad regardless of whether I have Germans or US.

Just to give another perspective:

I'm in the same Tourney that Subvet mentioned, and I too played that scenario as the FJ's vs my opponents Brit AB. He had a Vet Company + 1 platoon + an 75mm howitzer. I had 3 Reg FJ platoons + 105mm howitzer + 2x FO's of 150mm rockets.

I won, with the loss of only 1 platoon, to the almost complete annihilation of my opponent. (*Shrug* and I consider myself only an average player...).

But you are right about the Brit paras being the bargain buy among the allies --- can't find a cheaper battalion for what you get. As has already been pointed out, this seems to hold true for all the Airborne forces in CM. Considering the amount of training, weapons, etc. that go into an AB Company, this does seem rather odd.

[This message has been edited by von Lucke (edited 02-26-2001).]

[Dirtweasle]

Is'nt there really a question of unit cost though? Absent the players compentency, or lack of, the issue at hand seems to me to be valid. No?

I think that it is correct that almost any force selection has a chance of defeating, or at least making an interesting fight given a compentent player. The point here is that it would appear that the FJ selections are too cheap. At first I doubted this, and having played primarily form the allied side was incredulous this could be the case. But lookng at the cost/firepower/ammo/men-per-squad breakdowns, it very difficult to say that the FJs are not the best bargain. Perhaps they're too good of a deal. Even as a previous point said something to the effect; Well it's only a few percentage points off. That can make the differnce, and ought not be the case. If you can make a case that the Jumbo or some other piece of equipment is either too cheap, or over armored by a few nits, why not the FJ?