Rock, scissors and paper and Combat Mission

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

By the way, why is Allied infantry superior to German?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple. They had greater access to chocolate.

Michael

[Guest JAZZA]

Jarmo

you may already know,but you can have a no limit type game using the editor,you can discuss with your opponent what type of map you play on and get to see it before the battle starts, and you can choose the mix of infantry,armour etc with no allocation of points restriction.The only problem is,if you don't want to see what each other has purchased,you need a third person who you can send the map to along with unit purchase lists,who can then tournament save it and send it back.This is how some of Fionn's AAR's at cmhq were played.

It wouldn't mind seeing an option in cm2 that can change it so you don't need a third person to set it up for you.

[This message has been edited by JAZZA (edited 01-20-2001).]

[Guest JAZZA]

von Lucke wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've said it before: This seems like the answer to everybody's problems. The whole QB system is arbitrary and ahistorical, so why not allow complete freedom in choosing yr forces? As Jarmo has said, it won't take away, merely add to enjoyment of the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This wouldn't be a big deal to me if it BTS allowed complete freedom in choosing forces.All I would do is discuss with my opponent how I like to play and what restrictions I would like to use.If my opponent doesn't like it and wants to buy all king tigers or something,I simply won't play them.If I liked to play historically I would state that to my opponent,If they don't like it,I would find an opponent who did.Simple really.

[Jarmo]

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

you may already know,but you can have a no limit type game using the editor.... you need a third person.....This is how some of Fionn's AAR's at cmhq were played.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Edited the reply to better bring out my point.

Yes, I know it can be done already that way, but:

If it's a way many (even "high profile" players" would like to play, why not make it

possible without having to bug a third party.

It couldn't possibly even be a major programming undertaking.

Although it would take a day anyway..

And to repeat myself 'till I turn blue. It wouldn't take anything away from the game.

It beats me how some people are so willing to defend the game against any changes,

and yet so willing to defend the changes once they are made.

(Most of this answer was not meant to JAZZA, despite answering to his post.)

[Guest JAZZA]

Jarmo quoted:

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

you may already know,but you can have a no limit type game using the editor.... you need a third person.....This is how some of Fionn's AAR's at cmhq were played.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoa,this makes me look like I'm telling you off or something

I agree with you thats why I would like to maybe see this in CM2......

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How about putting an option in the editor so you don't have to send a map and unit purchase lists to a third party to tournament save it and send back.In the editor,maybe there could be a pbem option that has fog of war in the setup.So when you pick your units,save it and send it to your opponent,they can open it and not see your forces when they look at the map.This would be a way for people wanting to have no point allocation restrictions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by JAZZA (edited 01-20-2001).]

[von Lucke]

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

....The second question depends on what your view of reality and what CM is. Is CM historical or is it Battlecraft with WW2 tanks?...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My view of reality strongly hinges on which halucenogen I'm taking at that particular moment. How about sharing whatever you're using?

Really Slappy, where in my scant paragraph did I indicate any of what you so eloquently refute? Ok, "ahistorical" and "arbitrary" I suppose got yr knickers all in a twist? Allow me to elucidate:

First off, I happen to like the way that CM forces you to purchase units by platoon / coy. / batt. (at least for Infantry anyway --- wish it did it for Armor too). Makes larger battles much easier to set up in a hurry. What I was refering to was the way in which most players mix'n'match the rarest of the rare, or toss together the unlikeliest of kampfgruppe or combat commands, and still whine about what the other guy bought! Any game that allows players to purchase units themselves in random head-to-head matches will always be ahistorical --- especially when both sides are granted the same amount of purchase points. Sorry, can't avoid it. (Damn, even when playing an "historical" scenario, as soon as you press the Go button, it ceases to be historical).

I'm not in favor of taking away the force limits (that would be a baaad thing!). I like my TO&E as accurate as possible, thanks! What I am in favor of is an addition that would allow those so inclined to buy whatever they please (within the unit / TOE limitations of that month / year).

My friend, if you look hard enough at WW2 history you can find just about any combination of forces used by any side against any other side. The system used in CM to purchase units has been intentionally limited by BTS, and so is, by definition, arbitrary.

There now --- is all forgiven?

[This message has been edited by von Lucke (edited 01-20-2001).]

[Jarmo]

One more thing to add.

It's the "armor", "combined" etc. selection that currently allows "optimizing" your forces.

You pretty much know what you're facing, so you can shop accordingly.

If you have combined against infantry, you can skip the AT. Just get a few good infantry support

tanks to help you along.

If you have combined against armor, you can just grab good tank destroyers and let your more

numerous infantry handle the rest.

Even in combined vs combined or armor vs armor, you can still have a good estimate of what

you're facing.

But if you don't know your enemy, you can't optimize your forces against it.

This might actually lead to more realistic force compositions.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke:

My view of reality strongly hinges on which halucenogen I'm taking at that particular moment. How about sharing whatever you're using?

Really Slappy, where in my scant paragraph did I indicate any of what you so eloquently refute? Ok, "ahistorical" and "arbitrary" I suppose got yr knickers all in a twist? Allow me to elucidate:

First off, I happen to like the way that CM forces you to purchase units by platoon / coy. / batt. (at least for Infantry anyway --- wish it did it for Armor too). Makes larger battles much easier to set up in a hurry. What I was refering to was the way in which most players mix'n'match the rarest of the rare, or toss together the unlikeliest of kampfgruppe or combat commands, and still whine about what the other guy bought! Any game that allows players to purchase units themselves in random head-to-head matches will always be ahistorical --- especially when both sides are granted the same amount of purchase points. Sorry, can't avoid it. (Damn, even when playing an "historical" scenario, as soon as you press the Go button, it ceases to be historical).

I'm not in favor of taking away the force limits (that would be a baaad thing!). I like my TO&E as accurate as possible, thanks! What I am in favor of is an addition that would allow those so inclined to buy whatever they please (within the unit / TOE limitations of that month / year).

My friend, if you look hard enough at WW2 history you can find just about any combination of forces used by any side against any other side. The system used in CM to purchase units has been intentionally limited by BTS, and so is, by definition, arbitrary.

There now --- is all forgiven?

[This message has been edited by von Lucke (edited 01-20-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I just hit reply to you to reply to everyone on this thread.

I will always, basically, defend a move to:

>More realistic game play.

> The current system unless something can be shown that should change it.

Sometime back I pointed out the reason the Germans had such killer AT forces in Infantry, support, and mounted on tracks is they just did not have the number of vehicles to assign to infantry formations that the allies (and Russians) did. The German combined arms formation used lots of attrition forces to blow up the numerous Shermans and brethern. So from a point of view of making this game more historical without killing play balance, I support it.

I too hate too run up against US and British infanty with British tanks and a US M-18 cherry picked from the spending lists, just like I hate to face a mix of Gerbils and Fallguys with a Panther platoon. I want more historical, not less.

When I find a Volstrum unit next to a Herr rifle platoon -- hey, that was possible. Even a Puma hitting my flanks is cool (if you did not have to face Puma every game you played).

However -- and this is a big caveat, the issue is not really if this change is historical or if it is fair, it is both historical and fair. It is just that changing anything that appears to affect German Armour is taboo. If you made the Panther unable to be killed by the 76 at any range, some of the same people arguing against this would be happy as clams.

What may be a compromise is simple to put a fantasy football setting only for the German player. Then he or she can use that setting to buy anything they want while the Allied player was restricted to historical force balances. This would solve everything, and people who wanted to play historical just would not play the German fantasy football clan.

I say this because the idea of playing Allied combined arms versus German armour was soundly rejected, despite allowing almost the same thing to happen. It just represents the historical situation of a German Panzer unit bumping into an Allied mobile infantry force.

In other words I know you cannot be 100% historical, but if we roll back a historical thing to please the German big guns, why not allow Allies to buy tungsten for their tanks, why not just admit historical is impossible and that fantasy football with tanks is all this is? At what point do you throw away the attempt to be historical to suite a small consituency, and if you suite that small, german tank lover constinuency, why not also throw away some historical reality to suite the Allied tungsten lovers club, and some more to suite the allied off road speed club, and some more to suite the allied uber artillery club, etc? Why just cater to the ahistorical wishes of one group just because it is the most vocal?

(Don't believe they are the most vocal. Look at how many requests there are to make German weapons more powerful or reduce the capability of Allied weapons on this board in the past six months compared to the number of requests to do the same to allied weapons. Like 20 to 1 ratio, with only 1 of them presenting any facts more powerful than "everyone knows German tanks never were killed by X".)

[deanco]

I'm in the camp of those who think that CM is a Battle Simulator. You have men, you have armor, you have terrain. And I would like to see greater flexibility in choosing the units I wish to play with, yes. Having said that, one can go into the editor and make any sort of lopsided, unrealistic, or just plain silly battle imaginable.

Now that I've said that, from a beginner's standpoint, I'm glad that force limitation is the 'default' setting because it forces you to learn proper real-world tactics first, before going crazy with the King Tigers and such.

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

DeanCo--

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

so many games...so little time

[Panther131]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However -- and this is a big caveat, the issue is not really if this change is historical or if it is fair, it is both historical and fair. It is just that changing anything that appears to affect German Armour is taboo. If you made the Panther unable to be killed by the 76 at any range, some of the same people arguing against this would be happy as clams.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this case it appears that ignorance is bliss. On the contrary, It also seems that changing anything but german armor is taboo, as so many of you (cavscout) concluded

The thing is, I dont see anybody (slap?) presenting any swaying documentation on why the change from 1.05 to 1.1 was made.

Also, as slappy pointed out, there have been alot of people over the last few months clammaring for this change in armor points to be put back to its original state. The only logical assesment of this is that there must be, or might be a problem of "unfainess". I dont see how you can see this any other way. I mean people are voicing there opinions about it and you disagree.

Why not start a thread of your own, or better yet why hasnt there been a thread of "combined arms ME's now even with armor point reductions"...?

[Jarmo]

For the record, I would also like to see the american "support" points raised.

So you could actually use all your infantry points without having to purchase

individual platoons.

[Henri]

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

I disagree about the US having more flexibility, IMO the Germans still have the edge there even with reduced Armour points. Case in point for a 1000pt Combined Arms meeting engagement:

Axis

Example#1

1 SS Mot. Company(4MG42/2Mortars)

1 MkIVH

1 Hetzer

1 250/9

1 234/3

1 Panzershreck

1 120mmFO

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not exactly, this disposition is not possible with 1000 Axis points in a QB ME: you can't get both the Hetzer and the PzIVH with the armor points allowed. However you could buy the PzIVJ instead of the IVH, which is not quite as effective against infantry.

In addition, unless you take only regular infantry (not recommended if the opponent is going to have Veteran Allied infantry...), you can't buy the 120 mm FO nor the Pzschreck.

So one might go for veteran SS, replace the IVH with the IVJ and forego the 120 mm and the Pzschreck, with everything regular except for the infantry. It is not clear whether or not this is an equivalent force to what the Allied player can buy.If the opponent has an M10 and another tank, I guess the Geman player shuld play that his regular Hetzer gets the first kill against one of the US tanks...

Henri

[JoePrivate]

Yes Henri that was a typo, it should have been a MkIVJ not an H. I'm not sure why you would say it is less effective against infantry however.

I would always go for quantity(Regular) over quality in the smaller battles. Direct HE and artillery being indiscriminate in the damage it does.

The M10 has some disadvantages, weak armour and a very slow turret. It's 76 gun is the same as the German 75 for all practical purposes. The Hetzer on the other hand is very tough from the front when HD, it can shrug off 75 AP and most 76 AP(not tungsten) so if allowed to duel it will usually come out on top. It has weaknesses too of course. Like everything else in CM, maximize your stengths and minimize your weaknesses, no matter what side you play.

[Slapdragon]

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

For the record, I would also like to see the american "support" points raised.

So you could actually use all your infantry points without having to purchase

individual platoons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would not. That limitation is really in place to keep the firepower heavy US from going hog wild on the smaller battlefields. The same reason for the artillery. A good claim could be made for giving the US higher artillery to represent that added firepower, but as it is it restricts some of the more powerful and game slanting artillery from the smaller battles. It is a case of balancing making the game fair and historical. The game could be tilted to far to the US with a big change in some of the support areas.

[Henri]

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

I would always go for quantity(Regular) over quality in the smaller battles. Direct HE and artillery being indiscriminate in the damage it does.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you are right, my impression was based on the following: in a 1000-pt QB engagement, infantry is the key element, because IT has to take and to hold the objective. Assuming that the artillery and tanks cancel each otehr out, in the end it will be the remaining infantry that decides the battle, at least that has been my experience (the tougher infantry usually belonging to the opponent).

So the question arises: in an endgame slugfest with a battered US Rifle infantry company against a regular battered German SS company, which has the better chances, and does the expected result change if the German platoon is veteran instead of regular (at the cost of one 120 mm mortar less for the earlier battle)?

In other words, is one 120 mm FO and one Panzerschereck a fair trade for a regular vs veteran infantry company? I don't really know, but my instinct would be to go for the veterans.

Henri

[Slapdragon]

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

In this case it appears that ignorance is bliss. On the contrary, It also seems that changing anything but german armor is taboo, as so many of you (cavscout) concluded

The thing is, I dont see anybody (slap?) presenting any swaying documentation on why the change from 1.05 to 1.1 was made.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you need to just reread my previous posts, then read Vanir's post of the comment by Charles, to find the reason.

However -- this is an important concept that is ignored. Recoding the game costs money. Many peopel think BTS and other game design teams can just code in any change they want with no regards to time and revenue. Playtesting and discussions here led Charles to make a change, one that is supported by historical and play balance reasoning.

However, if that historical reason were flawed or the play balance was all that off it needs to be proven. People like Jeff Hiedmann want BTS to prove why something was done when I submit that it is the other way around. The people on this list need to come up with well supported, documented arguments, historical or game balance, why it should be changed. Look at Rexford for some good examples of making a good argument for change.

Now look at the average call for change. It usually starts with someone loosing a Tiger to a Hellcat or something, then asking BTS to make the Tiger more powerful or the Hellcat less powerful. No evidence is provided, no reasoning put forth. Look at your side (not you in particular, someone like Jeff H.) anbd look at what they want: BTS to prove why the game is the way it is, and unwilling to provide any evidence that German tank forces equalled allied at the front, or that the game in unbalanced.

So, to prove it is unbalanced, get 5 players from each side of the street - Cavscout, me, Polar, yourself, phillistine, others. Gives us the side we are arguing has been effected, and lets play 20 games. Take about two weeks. We should all then agree what the balance is.

Historical would require looking into numbers of AFVs at the front.

Then, once you have done this, and in the process convinced some of the others of your reasoning (if I get skunked 10 games out of 10 no chance of winning I will throw my hat into the ring for the system being unfair) then show what you have to BTS. Relying on making BTS prove to you why the system works is a nonstarter.

Panther -- if you did come up with good historical or game balance data that said their was a problem myself, Cavscout, and the missing historical people (who figure perhaps rightly nothing is to be gained by sticking their head into anything involving German armour) will fall in behind you like wooden soldiers. Doing what Jeff does -- demanding BTS prove to him why things are the way they are, is not going to change anything at all.

[JoePrivate]

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

Maybe you are right, my impression was based on the following: in a 1000-pt QB engagement, infantry is the key element, because IT has to take and to hold the objective. Assuming that the artillery and tanks cancel each otehr out, in the end it will be the remaining infantry that decides the battle, at least that has been my experience (the tougher infantry usually belonging to the opponent).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with the importance of the infantry which why I usually try to have more on hand. It may just come down to playing styles but I wouldn't trade artillery to get a veteran company versus a regular one. For me the artillery facilitates the maneuver/attack of my infantry. It will suppress and weaken the opposition's troops so when I do assault, the task is much easier accomplished, even with regulars. By having veterans you would need to be more careful keeping them intact as they will be fewer in number. I must admit it's been a rare game when the artillery and tanks cancel each other out, leaving the remaining infantry to battle. Usually I find one side or the other gains dominance then steamrolls through the opposition.

[von Lucke]

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

For the record, I would also like to see the american "support" points raised.

So you could actually use all your infantry points without having to purchase

individual platoons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, I'd like to see the TO&E for "Armored Infantry" added to the American Infantry force pool. The Germans have their half-track-borne troopers available with 'tracks, yet the Ami's have to buy theirs seperately --- makes it impossible to set up an Armored Infantry company (a standard element in an American armored division Combat Command).

[Panther131]

Good post Slap. Lets play some games and settle this thing for once and for all. Plus...at this point, I do not care as much I had once before about the german armor issue. I can win with the germans, and I have won with the allied, so lets have a duel. It should be fun.

[Slapdragon]

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

Good post Slap. Lets play some games and settle this thing for once and for all. Plus...at this point, I do not care as much I had once before about the german armor issue. I can win with the germans, and I have won with the allied, so lets have a duel. It should be fun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool with me. Next weekend soon enough? Send me the particulars of what you think is a good test, and lets go to it. The best idea for game balancing is to take the side you think is going to win, and give the other guy (me) the side you this is misbalanced. That way you fight your hardest no matter what.

[Slapdragon]

One issue that has come up many times on the board is on historical and proof. The issue is, does BTS have to prove to players like Jeff Heidman why they did something was correct each time it is questioned, or does the people wanting to change the game to something more to their liking have to present evidence that the change should be made. As can be seen in this discussion, it is a major sticking point, and is an issue a lot since something like 20 calls are made a week to change the game, only a few of which include an argument complete with evidence and a good rationale.

In order to explain why it is impractical for BTS to defend the game each time someone wants the Tiger's armour beefed up because Sherman killed it, I have posted a very short discussion of proof, historical or otherwise, on discussion groups. Requiring some system of proof in arguments may seem elitest to some, but I commend you to topics such as Rexford's discusions of ballistics to show you how good preperation and a complete understanding of a topic, presented well, can leade to better results in the discussions.

Paradigms and History: Proving your point on a discussion group: http://www.slapdragon.org/ph.html

[Panther131]

Posted by Slap: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In order to explain why it is impractical for BTS to defend the game each time someone wants the Tiger's armour beefed up because Sherman killed it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But Slap, that is not what is being questioned by Jeff H. I agree with you that when players of CM start to whine about a Tigers armor when that player gets brewed up by a sherman. But this is just not the case in Jeff H. 's argument. This argument is not what you are stating.

Again, while I do find that it is probably even on both sides to win especially with skilled players, my point of view is that is is too bad that one cannot use a King Tiger in a 1000 point battle. I enjoyed using the KT and having to suport it with infantry and suuport units. It wa alot of fun to do, and it definitly did not ensure a victory for the germans. Now with 1.1 that is not possible. I do not think that having one KT against say 3 allied tanks is a advantage to the axis. And this also seems to be a historical engagment, at least in unit numbers ie: 3 allied tanks to 1. However given the difference of the superiority of german mechanized division, obviously it would seem that the germans have some sort of an advantage to fight infantry. However in the name of historical accuracy, it would seem that 1.05 to 1.1 threre really is not much of a difference. With germans loading up on the quick and nimble pumas I would have to say that historical acuuracy goes out the window. Also, some might say that the germans have an advantage in the mech units by such a wide length, that CM may not really be any closer to balance then prieviosly before in the 1.05 version. So in the end, I say that it would be nice to see BTS really comment on this do that there will be some finality to the issue. I sure would like to see one dispite the previusly posted short explanations by BTS, it seem there are enough people upset about the change to warrent a response from BTS. Of course they could let the fire die out eventually by not commenting at all.

So again, I would like to say that I do not see any significant improvemnt in balance of play. Only it has been shifted to incorporate other units. I do not see any improvement in historical accuracy except that the historical inaccuracy has shifted to differnt units (the puma). So again I ask you or anybody to address these comments on why BTS has made a change. It just seems, and I may be going out on a limb here, but IMO, I believe that BTS has made the change to indirectly change the profound amount of players choosing axis over allied in CM. By making the "Big Cats" less available it lessons the appeal of playing the germans, which, has been historicaly CM's more popular side to choose.

You can disagree with me or not but more and more this is becoming a bit more clear, as it seems that nither play balance or historical acuracy has really been improved, merely it has just shifted.

Again, the reason for the change seems to be just to "fix" the abundant amount of players picking the axis, by discouraging it by reducing armor points effectively ruling out or reducing the availability or amount of "big cats" that a german player can use.

I also do see the reasoning behind this. As I said, there is a dominance in people liking playing the germans over the allied, so with the change it is quite possible that BTS was hoping to change the continuance of players choosing axis over allied.

After all, it is quite known that the german side is more popular then the allied.

Not sure if BTS has really changed anything in terms of balance, but it is obvious that the change has or will swade players to use the allies more.

BTW I know alot of you will diagree with me here but this is just an opinion, so please no flames in response.

Panther131