Quick Battle Force Balancing

[Phemur]

CMers;

There's been a lot of talk about Quick Battle balance. Most of those discussions were about avoiding an "arms race". I didn't really see the need for that until recently (see the Knocking out Ferdinand threads).

I've run into another situation that I'd like your opinion on. I'm playing the German defender in a 1000 point QB. My opponent has purchased nothing but armored cars, M8s and a few Shermans. I picked a balanced force (Infantry, a few Panzerschreks, INF guns, 20mm Flak, etc). Obviously I'm not equiped to deal with this force.

This happened because we picked an unlimited troop choice game. Since this situation can happen, why is it allowed at all?

Also, why isn't there some sort of increasing or cumulative penatly applied to a unit for every selection beyond the first? Some units, like the Tigers were quite rare. A force may have a few, and that's it. So why not increase the price everytime you buy one. That way, you'd avoid the situation where a force is composed of multiple identical units.

Thoughts?

Phemur

[Ex Bellator]

I dunno Phemur, I always thought that units tended to fight by type, and if you were unfortunate to actually run into a Tiger, then there was a good chance that there was another nearby. A cumulative penalty would be wrong IMO.

To avoid your situation the obvious answer is to play Combined Arms rather than Unrestricted. If your opponent wants to play Unrestricted then study the map parameters. If it is an open type of map, assume he's going armour heavy and prepare accordingly with long range tank destroyers. If it's medium or heavy cover then a combined force similar to your purchase should have a definite edge.

[SFJaykey]

If you agree to play with Unrestricted force types, you open yourself up to situations like this.

I hope that if/when CM adopts an overall "realism" setting, or somebody comes up with anequivalent Rule, that "unrestricted" force types are among the things banned at high realism levels.

[Phemur]

I always thought that units tended to fight by type, and if you were unfortunate to actually run into a Tiger, then there was a good chance that there was another nearby. A cumulative penalty would be wrong IMO.

You're correct. If you ran into a Tiger, there were probably a few others near by.

But I'm willing to bet there were other units as well. From what I've been reading, there were other units supporting an attack. There may have been a few tank destroyers, SPs, infantry, etc. Rarely would you have a combat group consisting of only one type of unit.

So here's my updated suggestion. There *could* be penalties for each additional unit beyond a certain number, depending on the unit being purchased. For more common vehicles, the penalty could be applied after the fifth or tenth (like a jeep). For rarer vehicles, that penalty could be applied after the first.

Also, the penalty could change from unit to unit. For example, the penalty for each additional Tiger could be +5%, while the penalty for Ferdinands could be +50%.

If you agree to play with Unrestricted force types, you open yourself up to situations like this.

Agreed. It's never been an issue in any of my previous games, but I've started playing a new player, and I've found the forces to be lob-sided, for both sides. We won't be allowing Unrestricted force choices anymore.

Still, I'm curious as to why this choice exists at all, considering the problem you occasionally get into.

Phemur

[laxx]

Hi,

in CMBB, rarity is addressed, so buying a rare unit like the 57mm t-34 tank will be very expensive.

Making an educated guess, the reason why it is included is because there were situations where it was very unbalanced, perhaps exactly like your scenario now, somewhere in some german-held village, a whole slew of allied afvs had to pass thru and thus encountered your combined troops.

well, usually it pays to lay down the ground rules before the game.

[Lady Roxanne]

I believe the "unrestricted" option was put in due to customer request over the months and years.

[Redwolf]

I really have difficulties grasping the original problem here.

Is there anything that the combined arms Quickbattle setting and my armor rules (shameless plug) wouldn't solve?

[ July 01, 2003, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[zukkov]

quit your bitchin' and take your lickin' like a man! lol.. seriously though, lop sided victories were pretty common in war. the last thing any general wanted to do was give the enemy a fighting chance. don't blame yourself, you just got out-generaled at a higher level. besides, the german front lines from 43 on were mostly just outposts. they began to practice defense in depth, which probably works better in an operation than in a single battle...

[lcm1947]

Personally I see nothing wrong with contacting your opponent and explaining your situation and let him decide if you guys should start a new game but this time talk it over and make some rules. Check out what Redwolf has created if you don't know exactly what to discuss or how to insure a fair balance of forces. I've played a few Pbem's and have never met an opponent that was hard to get along with and I bet it never occurred to him that you would consider his force wrong or gamey. Besides I bet there are individuals that really don't understand what a realistic force would consist of. I know I didn't not too long ago and am not 100% sure I even know now but if somebody mentioned something I did wrong I'd be more then happy to start over. Not much fun if the other guy thinks you're gamey and certainly no fun for you. Just my opinion.

[Phemur]

A few more rebuttals/responses.

I really have difficulties grasping the original problem here.

Is there anything that the combined arms Quickbattle setting and my armor rules (shameless plug) wouldn't solve?

I've run into a situation where the forces were unbalanced, not by armor thickness or firepower, but of numbers and unconventional troop choices allowed by Unrestricted game type. But even with a Combine Arms setting, the situation I'm facing could still happen.

For example, I've played two games against my new opponent. He's very much a beginning wargamer, so he was trying things out, like we all have. In his first game, he purchased 1500 points worth of MGs and Bazookas, and nothing else. I had a balanced force (infantry, AT units, arty, etc). In the second game, I had roughly the same units, while he picked a pure armor force, consisting of a large number of weak armor units (armored cars and 75mm SP guns).

The results were predictable; Total axis victory in the first, likely a total allied victory in the second (we're not done yet).

I think dropping the Unrestricted battle type and using the optional armor rules will fix some of these problems. We'll be doing so as of our next game.

But I don't think it will fix the problem of an opponent picking only one unit type (all MGs for example). This is what I find to be very unrealistic and unbalancing. In a combined arms quick battle, it may not make a difference.

quit your bitchin' and take your lickin' like a man!

With my considerable lack of tactical ability, I've learned to do so a long time ago.

Actually, I did the pummeling in one game, and it sucked just as much as getting pummeled. I'd rather have a nail-biter of a game, rather than knowing by turn 2 what the outcome of a game will be.

Personally I see nothing wrong with contacting your opponent and explaining your situation and let him decide if you guys should start a new game but this time talk it over and make some rules.

We're actually going to play this one to the end, for three reasons:

a) I want to try out a few infantry vs armor tactics, see if I can't score a few points.

We agreed to the rules before hand, and I'll see this game to the end, even if it means a drop in the ladder standings.

c) I'm a stubborn bastich that just won't give up

It's just one game out of many, so there's no point in finishing it now. Besides, he's having a blast blowing all the building in the village up, and it's kind of fun to watch.

We've already discussed this, and we'll drop Unrestricted battles and we'll adopt the optional armor rules.

Thanks for all of the replies and suggestions.

Phemur

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Phemur:

A few more rebuttals/responses.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I really have difficulties grasping the original problem here.

Is there anything that the combined arms Quickbattle setting and my armor rules (shameless plug) wouldn't solve?

I've run into a situation where the forces were unbalanced, not by armor thickness or firepower, but of numbers and unconventional troop choices allowed by Unrestricted game type. But even with a Combine Arms setting, the situation I'm facing could still happen.

For example, I've played two games against my new opponent. He's very much a beginning wargamer, so he was trying things out, like we all have. In his first game, he purchased 1500 points worth of MGs and Bazookas, and nothing else.

</font>

[Phemur]

MGs and all infantry AT units are in the support category. This would have been difficult to buy with a combined arms setting. Are you sure you have selected combined arms?

We haven't. This was an unrestricted quick battle.

However, I'm concerned that this could be an issue in other games. A large Combined Arms QB could lead to a force composed of uniform units.

I also dont see why this force is hard to defeat unless it is night or very wooded.

It isn't. In fact it was very easy to defeat. But winning without much effort is just as bad as losing without having a chance to win: it makes the game boring.

Also you said Bazookas, is that a CMBO battle?

It is. But that's just one of many examples, both in CMBB and CMBO. Mind you in CMBB, with rarity penalties, optional armor rules and non-unrestricted quick battles, this isn't likely to be an issue.

Phemur

[ July 02, 2003, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Phemur ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Phemur:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> MGs and all infantry AT units are in the support category. This would have been difficult to buy with a combined arms setting. Are you sure you have selected combined arms?

We haven't. This was an unrestricted quick battle.

However, I'm concerned that this could be an issue in other games. A large Combined Arms QB could lead to a force composed of uniform units.

</font>

[Beta1]

Your force dosnt sound that bad.

The 20mm flaks should wipe M8s and ACs out pretty quick, esp if you back them up with fausts/shrecks

[Jack Carr]

Besides, he's having a blast blowing all the building in the village up, and it's kind of fun to watch.

Is this a common tactic with your opponent? Does he see your men in the buildings or is this just preparation before moving into the destroyed village? Sounds kinda gamey to me. Any other opinions on this?

I use to play a guy via e-mail who would do this right off the bat. He would pull up a big self-propelled howitzer or tank and start destroying all of the buildings in the village or town. How ridiculous can you get? This is why I prefer to play the AI rather than a human opponent. It's one thing to prep the target by laying down an artillery barrage, it's quite another to pull up a couple of tanks and specifically target and then level every building in site.

It would be great to see some feedback on this post.

[Hansson]

Is this a common tactic with your opponent? Does he see your men in the buildings or is this just preparation before moving into the destroyed village? Sounds kinda gamey to me. Any other opinions on this?

I don't see anything gamey with that. it's quite common in modern wars blowing a village to molecules before entering it.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Besides, he's having a blast blowing all the building in the village up, and it's kind of fun to watch.

Is this a common tactic with your opponent? Does he see your men in the buildings or is this just preparation before moving into the destroyed village? Sounds kinda gamey to me. Any other opinions on this?

</font>

[Redwolf]

I have seen real-life AARs of Hummels showing up in the distance, blowing up a few houses and disappearing again. Somehow they didn't feel like coming in to play with visible soldiers

It's realistic and the ammo loads in the big HE throwers put an appropriate price tag of this kind of activity.

This is, BTW, one of the cooler aspects of CM, the fact that vehicles don't have their full ammo load unless the designer really wants it. I find the lower CM load to be realistic and right-sized for the short CM battles.

Imagine a fully loaded ISU-152 going berserk. A Pz IV with 90 HE shells could do arbitrary kind of unrealistic damage, too.

[ July 03, 2003, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Jack Carr]

Hannson wrote: I don't see anything gamey with that. it's quite common in modern wars blowing a village to molecules before entering it.

So what your saying is, it isn't gamey to pull up your tanks/tank destroyers/self-propelled howitzers and specifically target EVERY building in a village or town, not knowing if there are enemy units in it, and systematically blow them all to rubble? Did I interpret your response correctly?

In my post, I specifically stated that I used to play an opponent that did just that. If I did not make myself clear I apologize.

I see this as "gamey" for several reasons. If you intend to prep a target, area artillery barrage is the more realistic way. All of the armored units in the game have a limited ammo load, as pointed out by Redwolf's post. This ammo loadout generally consists of different ammo types, HE, AP, etc. With the tactic stated above, your units are literally using/wasting a limited supply of ammo on targets that may or may not be enemy occupied or for that matter, of any strategic importance.

I can see blowing up a building that you are almost certain would pose a real problem should it be occupied with an MG or other dangerous unit. But to systematically blow-up every building in a town or village seems a bit much.

[ng cavscout]

quote:

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

Hannson wrote: I don't see anything gamey with that. it's quite common in modern wars blowing a village to molecules before entering it.

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

In our training, the modern U.S. Army is very concerned with limiting "collateral" damage. The political and media cost of unintended damage to civilians and property is just too high.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:

I can see blowing up a building that you are almost certain would pose a real problem should it be occupied with an MG or other dangerous unit. But to systematically blow-up every building in a town or village seems a bit much.

It's not as if this was some sort of Übertactic or anything - if the buildings are empty, your enemy is just wasting his points by using up the ammo of his SPG's. And if he does it EVERY time, then you have an advantage - you could try setting up a trap for those Hummels, or use mortars to block the LOS with smoke so df support couldn't be used. But maybe he gets an advantage that he was looking for - he knows that you're too scared to place many troops into villages.

Of course it's not something that you'd see every day during the war. But commanders did have their own tendencies, some were more aggressive while another was sneaky, some let the blood flow while others retreated after few casualties were taken, etc. Systematically erasing villages or towns counts in my books as a war crime, and probably most commanders would refrain from it for personal moral conviction. But some wouldn't worry about executing 200 civilians for every soldier killed by partisans, or about doing what you described. Thus I don't think it's cheating or gamey. I certainly am always aware that buildings are shell magnets, and have secondary positions in mind if **** happens.

[Redwolf]

If he is doing it every time he is probably buying sIGs, Hummels, Grilles and the like exactly for this purpose.

Easy solution: AA gun behind house. House goes down ==> guaranteed LOS to thin SP gun with overwhelming hit probablity from AA gun. Alternativly, other guns with TRPs might do because you can probably figure out a suitable place for the TRPs if he is so predictable.

You might suffer from dust being kicked up, but on the other hand it might help to get LOS to the SP guns one after another and not at the same time.

[Jack Carr]

Sergei wrote: It's not as if this was some sort of Übertactic or anything...

Not sure what your point is here. Personally, I think the practice, I really would rather not call it a tactic, is ridiculous and gamey.

if the buildings are empty, your enemy is just wasting his points by using up the ammo of his SPG's. And if he does it EVERY time, then you have an advantage

I agree wholeheartedly. Furthermore, would a tank commander not take into account that if he expends his ammunition on destroying buildings that there will be none left to defend the infantry he is supposed to be supporting or his own vehicle should it come under attack during the battle?

Of course it's not something that you'd see every day during the war. But commanders did have their own tendencies, some were more aggressive while another was sneaky, some let the blood flow while others retreated after few casualties were taken, etc. Systematically erasing villages or towns counts in my books as a war crime, and probably most commanders would refrain from it for personal moral conviction. But some wouldn't worry about executing 200 civilians for every soldier killed by partisans, or about doing what you described. Thus I don't think it's cheating or gamey. I certainly am always aware that buildings are shell magnets, and have secondary positions in mind if **** happens.

You mentioned war crimes. I had to laugh when I read this, especially after reading the US soldiers response above. I can see it now, the Mogilny's are just sitting down in their hovel for a meal when suddenly Schwere Abteilung 502 tops the rise and blows their whole village to kingdom come, using 75% of it's ammo in the process, not even realizing that the enemy is on the other side of the map (LOL). Anyone ever heard of Oradour Sur Glane? I think the little town was left in it's destroyed state as a sort of horrific monument.

I suppose one could design a scenario about squashing the Polish uprising and one of the objectives would be to demolish every building in the Warsaw ghetto. I haven't seen that scenario yet and I sincerely doubt that the original poster of this thread is describing his opponents demolition tanker practice in such a scenario.

Some of you are saying that to reduce to rubble every building on the map is not gamey but I can't see it. It takes a perfectly good WWII strategy/simulator and reduces it to the level of some sort of pointless building smash-up derby.

[manchildstein (ii)]

if there's a map with just a couple of 2nd level buildings and i have a lot of attacking assault guns i will shell those buildings simply to ensure there are no enemy FOs or MGs in there...

i read somewhere that a common german tactic in the late-war west was to set up in the inner buildings, behind the outer buildings which were often first destroyed by american HE fire...

in cm, if a town has a multitude of 2nd level buildings the tactic won't work, but if i'm in chance encounter that church toward the middle is a good target whether i'm american or german... especially if i start taking fire from there...

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think the main reason people use the Unrestricted setting for QBs in CMBB is that under Combined Arms the Soviets get almost twice as many points to spend in the armor category.