How to make QB's balanced?

[Sergei]

What other factors than unit prices have an effect on Quick Battle balance? Let's suppose I wanted to have a fair match against you. Could we assume that no matter what settings we take, we both have about the same possibilities to win?

I doubt that. There's so many variables in QB setup, that not all of them can be assumed to work out with the same balance. For instance, do you think that in 1943 having a Combined Arms battle where German defend against a Partisan attack in midday, open and flat terrain, would be balanced? What about if those Partisans were defending against a German Pure Armour force in a city at night time and bad weather conditions? And if German panzers have hard time against Soviets, then surely Italians will do even worse. Are rarity rules against balance, if base prices are balanced? I think so. Is the effect of good or bad weather, covered or open terrain, hills or flat, always equal for both forces? I doubt. A Königstiger or a HMG is less useful in low visibility conditions, but still costs the same as in those conditions where its gun and optics (which you pay for in the price) could be useful.

If we want any kind of balance, should we then always stick to German or Soviet army (no minors, no division types with limited weaponry), use some sort of "medium" map conditions, midday? Or could we maybe discuss what combinations are more fair and which should ideally be compensated for with some kind of handicap?

[Poor Old Spike]

Hey Sergei--I play in the Rugged Defense cmbb ladder and use a set of parameters that nearly everybody likes because I've made them very fair and balanced! I currently have 25 pbems going because people are always wanting to play me!

E-mail me for advice anytime :cool:

[Poor Old Spike]

Hey Sergei--I play in the Rugged Defense cmbb ladder and use a set of parameters that nearly everybody likes because I've made them very fair and balanced! I currently have 25 pbems going because people are always wanting to play me!

E-mail me for advice anytime :cool:

[JasonC]

I won't pretend to cover all of the options, because there are just too many. But one way to get a particularly balanced fight for a meeting engagement, where you don't want things lopsided this way or that, is the following -

Both sides use combined arms force type.

Germans use panzer division parent unit type.

Russians use infantry division parent unit type.

Ban true heavy tanks (Tigers, KVs, IS only).

The Germans can be SS or Heer, and the Russians can be Guards or not.

The difference in the parent unit types serves to about equalize the armor point budget. The ban on heavies only serves to prevent the date from determining the outcome of the armor war on its own (KVs 1941, Tigers 1943, etc).

Superior tanks are still possible (T-34s in 1941, StuGs in 1942-3, Panthers in 1943-4, etc). But the kind that are unkillable even with flank shots that make everyone just cower don't decide games.

For what it is worth.

[Sergei]

Thanks for your replies!

[RSColonel_131st]

Currently playing with Sgt Goody in open force selection, 2000 points, and an otherwise totally random map.

It might not be balanced...but since we both bought Units before seeing the map it will show who can adapt better and who has the better all-around tactics.

[Sergei]

That is true. On the other hand, certain situations allow one side to use more straight-forward tactics than the other, and if they both are of the same level, it can be decisive for the outcome.

What kind of force have you opted for? How has it worked? Would you pick it again for a random engagement? War secrets, I know, but maybe you can tell if the game is near end... I have sometimes wondered about what is the optimal balance of forces that works on average best in all situations and against any enemy force. But it's a tricky issue, depending on things like what the average visibility is, and so on.

I'm actually not someone who expects perfectly even QB's or scenarios, the main point is fun. But it is more exciting for both parties when they have the same chances of winning or biting the dust as their foe, having to fight relentlessly to the bitter-sweet end. Of course it also requires your opponent to be of the same level, too.

[Panzer76]

Only way to make it truly balanced is for the two players to have the exact same forces, and the map is the same for both. I recommend the "Hostile Brothers" scenario if u want to play a truly balanced battle. Other than that, the points give you a rough indiaction.

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally posted by Sergei:

What kind of force have you opted for? How has it worked? Would you pick it again for a random engagement? War secrets, I know, but maybe you can tell if the game is near end...

I'm always trying to use mechanized infantry with Tank Support - at least when I'm on the move and not in static defense. Even if Goody is reading this, I dont think that's news to him.

The map turned out to be medium trees, quite flat, it's pretty much a map that is not yet prohibitive to armor, but yet not perfect for tanks either.

You can of course email me, and I'll provide you with details and screenshots. There will be an AAR when it's finished, but we still have around 20 turns to go, if not more.

[laxx]

It dawned on me that different time-frame requires different tactics.

Eg.

Pre-June 1942, Russian Tanks ruled. Infantry tactics were important, and flank/rear shots were quite necessary but difficult to achieve in one player QBs because of the elongated rectangle maps. I played a TCPIP QB with Faustist (hi!), and got my tanks badly mauled by a lone KV. My Somua and PzKpfw 38 kept pinging to no avail. My troops were too far away to lob the anti-tank Grenades. In retrospect, I should have kept the tank away and do a flank to destroy other Anti-tank assets, and HQ company. Nevertheless, I can't help but think that not being able to disable the KV effectively lost the game.

anyone remember a post which details different QB force mix (what to buy for AI and yourself) for newbies (like me) to test, i remember one for defense, one for attack.