combined arms unbalanced?

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

A friend and I were recently playing a combined arms allied attack game on one of BCR's maps (Ferrovia). Our QB allowed for 1000 pts (1500 for the attacker). The game turned out incredibly unfairly because the allies get so many extra armor points. Of the 1500 points 549 of them can be spent for armor, while the axis only get 200 to defend. Add this to the fact that axis tanks are generally more expensive and the tank ratio gets really unbalanced. (1 to 8 in our game, plus the allies had 3 halftracks to boot).

I tried to see how this would work out if the allies were in the defensive position. In this case, the axis only get 300 armor points to attack while the allies have 366 to defend! Again this point difference is accentuated by the cheaper allied tanks. It seems really unfair to expect the axis to overcome such odds, unless the map and conditions are extremely favorable.

(In this case, the defender's position was further weakened by the dynamic flag system. Even though the flag is chosen randomly in a QB unlike in a scenario, this system seems to provide an insurmountable advantage to the attacker, no?)

Why is the combined arms point system weighted this way? Does anyone have any solutions for balancing attack/defend QBs more fairly? I'm tempted to just do unrestricted forces, but that seems like allowing even more luck into the balancing of a game.

In general, what are your favorite conditions for providing as evenly matched game as possible between two human opponents?

Thanks for your suggestions,

Dr. Rosenrosen

[ July 27, 2003, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Rosenrosen ]

[Becket]

Germans will always have less "combined arms" armor points that Soviets, BUT you can vary the amount upward based on unit type (IIRC, SS Mechanized has one of the highest point totals).