QB force points question

[Lt Bull]

I got a few questions regarding QB force points and some of the QB variables. I don't often play QBs but I am still surprised I have never bothered to find out until now .

Do any of the following settings affect the force point total:

% casualty setting?

fitness level ?

% ammunition level?

eg. If I (or the CPU) had enough points to buy n full strength infantry company, for the same amount of points could I (or the CPU) buy approximately two infantry companies if I (or the CPU) had a 50% casualty setting?

eg. Does changing the ammunition level from 100% to say 50% make units any more cheaper? How about the fitness level?

Cheers

Lt Bull

[Lt Bull]

I got a few questions regarding QB force points and some of the QB variables. I don't often play QBs but I am still surprised I have never bothered to find out until now .

Do any of the following settings affect the force point total:

% casualty setting?

fitness level ?

% ammunition level?

eg. If I (or the CPU) had enough points to buy n full strength infantry company, for the same amount of points could I (or the CPU) buy approximately two infantry companies if I (or the CPU) had a 50% casualty setting?

eg. Does changing the ammunition level from 100% to say 50% make units any more cheaper? How about the fitness level?

Cheers

Lt Bull

[Folbec]

Part of my standard blurb for newbies : (figures for CMBB - the same for CMAK) :

for 1000pts QB with x% randoms casualties defender/attacker (note that defender and attacker rarely have the same casualties % in a real QB) :

0%/0% 10%/10% 20%/20% 30%/30% 40%/40% 50%/50%

Assault 1000/1720 1111/1911 1250/2150 1428/2457 1666/2866 2000/3440 +72%

Attack 1000/1500 1111/1666 1250/1875 1428/2142 1666/2500 2000/3000 +50%

Probe 1000/1400 1111/1556 1250/1750 1428/2000 1666/2333 2000/2800 +40%

ME 1000/1000 1111/1111 1250/1250 1428/1428 1666/1666 2000/2000 +00%

Note that in the current engine (1.03) some types of fortifications (trenches, TRP, wire, ?) seem to count as losses against the defender at the final tally.

Defender in attack or assault gets a setup area of ~40% of map depth, probe 35%, ME 15% ; attacker in attack or assault gets a setup area of ~20%, probe 25%, ME 15%

It's often better to go with small or medium map since the game automatically rescales if too small (and games on huge maps are boring, unless pure armor)

[Folbec]

Part of my standard blurb for newbies : (figures for CMBB - the same for CMAK) :

for 1000pts QB with x% randoms casualties defender/attacker (note that defender and attacker rarely have the same casualties % in a real QB) :

0%/0% 10%/10% 20%/20% 30%/30% 40%/40% 50%/50%

Assault 1000/1720 1111/1911 1250/2150 1428/2457 1666/2866 2000/3440 +72%

Attack 1000/1500 1111/1666 1250/1875 1428/2142 1666/2500 2000/3000 +50%

Probe 1000/1400 1111/1556 1250/1750 1428/2000 1666/2333 2000/2800 +40%

ME 1000/1000 1111/1111 1250/1250 1428/1428 1666/1666 2000/2000 +00%

Note that in the current engine (1.03) some types of fortifications (trenches, TRP, wire, ?) seem to count as losses against the defender at the final tally.

Defender in attack or assault gets a setup area of ~40% of map depth, probe 35%, ME 15% ; attacker in attack or assault gets a setup area of ~20%, probe 25%, ME 15%

It's often better to go with small or medium map since the game automatically rescales if too small (and games on huge maps are boring, unless pure armor)

[Folbec]

One side effect of (random) losses is to increase somewhat the number of units

for a given number of points : you are able to buy larger formations,

and get more platoon / company / battalion discount on units. It is, for instance,

the only way to buy the largest mecanized US (CMAK) and German (CMAK, CMBB) under

"Combined Arms" restrictions, such as the "Armored SS PanzerGrenadier Battalion"

in 44 (4000 pts, max vehicle is 2500 @ 5000pts & 50% losses, vehicle value is 2144,

lots of gun equipped HTs ). I also feel it's more realistic, most units were

understrength most of the time except at the beginning of a very major offensive.

[Folbec]

One side effect of (random) losses is to increase somewhat the number of units

for a given number of points : you are able to buy larger formations,

and get more platoon / company / battalion discount on units. It is, for instance,

the only way to buy the largest mecanized US (CMAK) and German (CMAK, CMBB) under

"Combined Arms" restrictions, such as the "Armored SS PanzerGrenadier Battalion"

in 44 (4000 pts, max vehicle is 2500 @ 5000pts & 50% losses, vehicle value is 2144,

lots of gun equipped HTs ). I also feel it's more realistic, most units were

understrength most of the time except at the beginning of a very major offensive.

[Lt Bull]

OK, so from your second post, you indicate that by increasing the % casualties, formations become cheaper (eg. if at 50% casualties, you would for exaample get two 50% casualty reduced platoons rather than one full strength platoon for the same price).

Still kind of confusing here. For example, if the setting is on random casualties, does the game apply the random casualty level AFTER the units have been selected (in which case the unist would be full price) or BEFORE (in which case at the time of selection the unist are already discounted)?

How does % casualties affect non infantry units? It's not as if you can have a 50% casualty affected tank for example.

I don't fully understand why, in your table in your first post, the force points are shown to increase with the casualty % level. I thought you were saying that units got cheaper (because they are damaged/reduced as per the casualty %) while the points available to the player/CPU to spend stays the same.

What about the fitness and ammo levels on the point cost?

Lt Bull

[Lt Bull]

OK, so from your second post, you indicate that by increasing the % casualties, formations become cheaper (eg. if at 50% casualties, you would for exaample get two 50% casualty reduced platoons rather than one full strength platoon for the same price).

Still kind of confusing here. For example, if the setting is on random casualties, does the game apply the random casualty level AFTER the units have been selected (in which case the unist would be full price) or BEFORE (in which case at the time of selection the unist are already discounted)?

How does % casualties affect non infantry units? It's not as if you can have a 50% casualty affected tank for example.

I don't fully understand why, in your table in your first post, the force points are shown to increase with the casualty % level. I thought you were saying that units got cheaper (because they are damaged/reduced as per the casualty %) while the points available to the player/CPU to spend stays the same.

What about the fitness and ammo levels on the point cost?

Lt Bull

[Folbec]

Exemple :

1000pts game Attack : 30% casualties :

As attacker, I should get 1500 pts, I get 2142, I spend 2142, but I know that random units in my purchase will get killed or damaged to bring the point total back to 1500.

The unit price stay the same :

A soviet 82mm FO purchased alone cost 107, but 98 if purchased as part of a battalion. This means that if I am able to buy larger formations, I will get more units and I may now be able to make purchases that would have broken the 1500 pts ceiling or the combined arms ceilings.

Thus, more points in the initial purchase => more units even after attrition IF AND ONLY IF you buy in companies and battalions.

It's not formations that become cheaper, it is individual units, when compared to unit by unit purchase.

Sometimes, you will get a tank with one crew casualty, but most of the time you will get no tank : a good incentive to buy tanks by platoons, they will be cheaper (platoon discount), and you will probably get at least some survivors of the platoon.

One added advantage it that it makes it risky to build your purchase around a single super King Tiger : it may be "killed" in the random casuaties, or it may "survive" at the expense of the covering infantry. This is mainly valid for low points QBs.

I do not know for ammo, I would not try fitness in QBs : an attacker stuck with weakened infantry units is basically screwed unless the map is VERY small : the units are way too slow.

One side effect for the attacker is that crewed units may end up with less ammo when they start moving (crew casualties => dump some ammo when start to move).

[Folbec]

Exemple :

1000pts game Attack : 30% casualties :

As attacker, I should get 1500 pts, I get 2142, I spend 2142, but I know that random units in my purchase will get killed or damaged to bring the point total back to 1500.

The unit price stay the same :

A soviet 82mm FO purchased alone cost 107, but 98 if purchased as part of a battalion. This means that if I am able to buy larger formations, I will get more units and I may now be able to make purchases that would have broken the 1500 pts ceiling or the combined arms ceilings.

Thus, more points in the initial purchase => more units even after attrition IF AND ONLY IF you buy in companies and battalions.

It's not formations that become cheaper, it is individual units, when compared to unit by unit purchase.

Sometimes, you will get a tank with one crew casualty, but most of the time you will get no tank : a good incentive to buy tanks by platoons, they will be cheaper (platoon discount), and you will probably get at least some survivors of the platoon.

One added advantage it that it makes it risky to build your purchase around a single super King Tiger : it may be "killed" in the random casuaties, or it may "survive" at the expense of the covering infantry. This is mainly valid for low points QBs.

I do not know for ammo, I would not try fitness in QBs : an attacker stuck with weakened infantry units is basically screwed unless the map is VERY small : the units are way too slow.

One side effect for the attacker is that crewed units may end up with less ammo when they start moving (crew casualties => dump some ammo when start to move).

[Lt Bull]

I see now how it works, but still got some questions though

Is the casualty % based on random casualties on the actual number of individual troops (regardless of what units they are and how many points they are worth) or is it based on a % reduction equivalent in force points.

NOTE:

I just did a test with a small engineer company but the % reduction in troops was about the same as the % reduction in force points (for each unit I based % reduction in force points equal to the actual numerical % reduction in troops from each unit) so it didn't tell me much.

eg. Lets say I had a 50% casualty setting on a 1000pt ME. That means I get to buy 2000 pts of units then suffer the 50%. Hypotheically, lets say I bought one tank with a crew of 4 in it worth 1000pts and bought 1000pts worth of assorted infantry (lets assume 500 troops).

Once I go to setup, the game applies its random casusltiues. Do I randomly loose 50% of the total number of troops (ie. 252 of the 504 I have selected) or 50% equivalent in force point total (ie. theoretically possibly losing just the one tank worth 1000pts and no infantry, or all my infantry leaving just the tank)?

BTW- I just did some more tests. Ammo loadout DOES NOT affect the cost of units, but the fitness level does. On the engineer company I tested, there was a 10% and 20% cost reduction for Weakened and Unfit settings respectively over the Fit setting cost. Vehicle costs are not affected.

Lt Bull

[ May 21, 2006, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[Lt Bull]

I see now how it works, but still got some questions though

Is the casualty % based on random casualties on the actual number of individual troops (regardless of what units they are and how many points they are worth) or is it based on a % reduction equivalent in force points.

NOTE:

I just did a test with a small engineer company but the % reduction in troops was about the same as the % reduction in force points (for each unit I based % reduction in force points equal to the actual numerical % reduction in troops from each unit) so it didn't tell me much.

eg. Lets say I had a 50% casualty setting on a 1000pt ME. That means I get to buy 2000 pts of units then suffer the 50%. Hypotheically, lets say I bought one tank with a crew of 4 in it worth 1000pts and bought 1000pts worth of assorted infantry (lets assume 500 troops).

Once I go to setup, the game applies its random casusltiues. Do I randomly loose 50% of the total number of troops (ie. 252 of the 504 I have selected) or 50% equivalent in force point total (ie. theoretically possibly losing just the one tank worth 1000pts and no infantry, or all my infantry leaving just the tank)?

BTW- I just did some more tests. Ammo loadout DOES NOT affect the cost of units, but the fitness level does. On the engineer company I tested, there was a 10% and 20% cost reduction for Weakened and Unfit settings respectively over the Fit setting cost. Vehicle costs are not affected.

Lt Bull

[ May 21, 2006, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[Lt Bull]

Couldn't help myself. Did my own tests to find out.

Seems it's a % casualty reduction in POINTS and not heads/individuals. Interesting as generally speaking, we normally associate the term "casualties" with individuals, and not their "worth".

It would be intersting if there was an option to have the game apply the % casualties on the TOTAL number of troops as opposed to the force points. Would simulate something like an artillery attack that causes x% causlties without discriminating who gets killed.

Would certainly make things alot less predictable and variable and also make the player think differntly about WHAT units he selects AND the actual total number of troops in his force. He might want to invest in some cheap "casualty fodder" troops in an attempt to "soak up" any casualties to reduce the chances of his higher force cost units from suffering losses.

Cheers

Lt Bull

[ May 21, 2006, 05:27 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[Lt Bull]

Couldn't help myself. Did my own tests to find out.

Seems it's a % casualty reduction in POINTS and not heads/individuals. Interesting as generally speaking, we normally associate the term "casualties" with individuals, and not their "worth".

It would be intersting if there was an option to have the game apply the % casualties on the TOTAL number of troops as opposed to the force points. Would simulate something like an artillery attack that causes x% causlties without discriminating who gets killed.

Would certainly make things alot less predictable and variable and also make the player think differntly about WHAT units he selects AND the actual total number of troops in his force. He might want to invest in some cheap "casualty fodder" troops in an attempt to "soak up" any casualties to reduce the chances of his higher force cost units from suffering losses.

Cheers

Lt Bull

[ May 21, 2006, 05:27 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[dieseltaylor]

The way it works now is just fine. We would not really wish for people to start "arranging" their forces would we : )

I think the parameter setting is almost worth a book in itself in the effects it has on battles and reintroduces the true FOW. Nothing so irritating where someone says regular troops Combined Arms 1500 points whereupon you can calculate to the point what can be spent where.

Casualty levels, weather, etc all make it more of an adventure

[dieseltaylor]

The way it works now is just fine. We would not really wish for people to start "arranging" their forces would we : )

I think the parameter setting is almost worth a book in itself in the effects it has on battles and reintroduces the true FOW. Nothing so irritating where someone says regular troops Combined Arms 1500 points whereupon you can calculate to the point what can be spent where.

Casualty levels, weather, etc all make it more of an adventure

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

The way it works now is just fine. We would not really wish for people to start "arranging" their forces would we : )

I think the parameter setting is almost worth a book in itself in the effects it has on battles and reintroduces the true FOW. Nothing so irritating where someone says regular troops Combined Arms 1500 points whereupon you can calculate to the point what can be spent where.

Casualty levels, weather, etc all make it more of an adventure

dt, are you sure you have thought through the implications on FOW, predictability and players calculating/arranging troops between a "force points" based casualty system (as it is in the game) in comparison to if it was a "numerical troop" based casualty system (as I have suggested)? :confused:

If you could only play one kind of scenario in CM I'm sure it too would work just fine as well. But surely any optional variation on a theme surely makes things more interesting and opens up more interesting challenges and possibilities. As you said, it all makes it more of an adventure.

If you don't want to wish for players "arranging"/predicting their QB forces in any way, then you would most certainly be rooting for a casualty system based on actual troop numbers and not force points. It is MUCH easier to predict HOW a force points based casualty based system will shape a selected QB force than if a troops numbers based casualty based system was used.

So if you say you are looking for more FOW and less predictability and a system less open to scrupulous "card counting" techniques, then a random troops numbers based casualty system would be the way to go in this case.

Lt Bull

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

The way it works now is just fine. We would not really wish for people to start "arranging" their forces would we : )

I think the parameter setting is almost worth a book in itself in the effects it has on battles and reintroduces the true FOW. Nothing so irritating where someone says regular troops Combined Arms 1500 points whereupon you can calculate to the point what can be spent where.

Casualty levels, weather, etc all make it more of an adventure

dt, are you sure you have thought through the implications on FOW, predictability and players calculating/arranging troops between a "force points" based casualty system (as it is in the game) in comparison to if it was a "numerical troop" based casualty system (as I have suggested)? :confused:

If you could only play one kind of scenario in CM I'm sure it too would work just fine as well. But surely any optional variation on a theme surely makes things more interesting and opens up more interesting challenges and possibilities. As you said, it all makes it more of an adventure.

If you don't want to wish for players "arranging"/predicting their QB forces in any way, then you would most certainly be rooting for a casualty system based on actual troop numbers and not force points. It is MUCH easier to predict HOW a force points based casualty based system will shape a selected QB force than if a troops numbers based casualty based system was used.

So if you say you are looking for more FOW and less predictability and a system less open to scrupulous "card counting" techniques, then a random troops numbers based casualty system would be the way to go in this case.

Lt Bull

[dieseltaylor]

Hi Lt Bull

It would be intersting if there was an option to have the game apply the % casualties on the TOTAL number of troops as opposed to the force points. Would simulate something like an artillery attack that causes x% causlties without discriminating who gets killed.

Would certainly make things alot less predictable and variable and also make the player think differntly about WHAT units he selects AND the actual total number of troops in his force. He might want to invest in some cheap "casualty fodder" troops in an attempt to "soak up" any casualties to reduce the chances of his higher force cost units from suffering losses.

I see what you are saying. I am a great fan of casualties as a means of inducing more FOW. However as the current system loses artillery and tanks for you aswell as infantry I see no problem. If you start with 3000 points to spend with 50% casualties you both end up with the equivalent of 1500 purchased points to fight with.

Your system might lead to imbalances where I lose all my expensive men by lottery and end up with a fighting value of 900 points against my opponents 1500. It may be true to life but will make battles less attractive under the current scoring system.

Incidentally 10-20% seems to be the most that people are comfortable to take .....if at all !

[dieseltaylor]

Hi Lt Bull

It would be intersting if there was an option to have the game apply the % casualties on the TOTAL number of troops as opposed to the force points. Would simulate something like an artillery attack that causes x% causlties without discriminating who gets killed.

Would certainly make things alot less predictable and variable and also make the player think differntly about WHAT units he selects AND the actual total number of troops in his force. He might want to invest in some cheap "casualty fodder" troops in an attempt to "soak up" any casualties to reduce the chances of his higher force cost units from suffering losses.

I see what you are saying. I am a great fan of casualties as a means of inducing more FOW. However as the current system loses artillery and tanks for you aswell as infantry I see no problem. If you start with 3000 points to spend with 50% casualties you both end up with the equivalent of 1500 purchased points to fight with.

Your system might lead to imbalances where I lose all my expensive men by lottery and end up with a fighting value of 900 points against my opponents 1500. It may be true to life but will make battles less attractive under the current scoring system.

Incidentally 10-20% seems to be the most that people are comfortable to take .....if at all !

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

Your system might lead to imbalances where I lose all my expensive men by lottery and end up with a fighting value of 900 points against my opponents 1500. It may be true to life but will make battles less attractive under the current scoring system.

That would be extremely unlikely yet it is one of the many possibilities with such a system. But remember your opponent won't know that, and you won't know how the casualties affected your opponents forces either. Do you/does he feel luck enough to play like you/they have any advantage?

I liken it to the unpredictabilty and indiscriminant way an artillery attack can cause casualties to soldiers regardless of who they are or how experienced/fit/well equipt they are. It's a lucky dip. It is just part of the fortunes/misfortunes of battle. Like a lottery...you understand the risks, you take your chances and accept and make do with the hand fate deals you to follow your orders, without complaint.

Lt Bull

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

Your system might lead to imbalances where I lose all my expensive men by lottery and end up with a fighting value of 900 points against my opponents 1500. It may be true to life but will make battles less attractive under the current scoring system.

That would be extremely unlikely yet it is one of the many possibilities with such a system. But remember your opponent won't know that, and you won't know how the casualties affected your opponents forces either. Do you/does he feel luck enough to play like you/they have any advantage?

I liken it to the unpredictabilty and indiscriminant way an artillery attack can cause casualties to soldiers regardless of who they are or how experienced/fit/well equipt they are. It's a lucky dip. It is just part of the fortunes/misfortunes of battle. Like a lottery...you understand the risks, you take your chances and accept and make do with the hand fate deals you to follow your orders, without complaint.

Lt Bull

[JasonC]

If the lottery removes side As only capable AT weapons and leaves a Tiger on the other side, it fails to add interest. Or one side loses an infantry platoon, while the opponent loses a 150mm sIG and a heavy PAK.

Lumpy, high point total items simply don't work with large "haircut" loss settings. There are much better and much worse places for the random "hit" to fall, and the points removed being equal does not remotely mean the resulting forces are well matched.

You can argue that ones *chances* are even at the selection stage, before the dice have been rolled. But by the set up stage they aren't - somebody got a big lead by pure chance, a third of the time. If you want reasonable balance at that stage, limit uses of the losses feature to 10-20%.

[JasonC]

If the lottery removes side As only capable AT weapons and leaves a Tiger on the other side, it fails to add interest. Or one side loses an infantry platoon, while the opponent loses a 150mm sIG and a heavy PAK.

Lumpy, high point total items simply don't work with large "haircut" loss settings. There are much better and much worse places for the random "hit" to fall, and the points removed being equal does not remotely mean the resulting forces are well matched.

You can argue that ones *chances* are even at the selection stage, before the dice have been rolled. But by the set up stage they aren't - somebody got a big lead by pure chance, a third of the time. If you want reasonable balance at that stage, limit uses of the losses feature to 10-20%.

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by JasonC:

If the lottery removes side As only capable AT weapons and leaves a Tiger on the other side, it fails to add interest. Or one side loses an infantry platoon, while the opponent loses a 150mm sIG and a heavy PAK.

Depends if the player sees unfortunate (unlikely) outcomes as a challenge and an opportunity to try their best and adapt/adjust their battle plan and not as a reason to moan about the hand they have been dealt. I just think it is all part of the fun and mystery of delving into the unknown of any FOW battle.

I'm sure there must be many players who, if faced with situations you describe, would want to throw in the towel at the setup stage without even giving themselevs a chance and without knowing what kind of forces their oppenents selected and how the random casualties affected them. I'm not one of them. Others are. Perhaps the value of FOW and the challenge of adapting battle plans when you may feel you may have been dealt a rough hand through no fault of your own is lost on some players.

If I found myself being dealt a crappy hand (losing all my dedicated AT assets for example), regardless of the actual force balance that was present in the game (I would only really know that when the game ends anyways) and regardless of the end game score, I will rate my performance relative to the what the battle situation was and what assests each side actually ended up pitting against each other. Who knows. It might just end up being one of my greatest and most cunning victories. Or perhaps the enemy didn't even select any armour (or lost all of his to casualties) so perhaps it was good thing that my AT assest disappeared and not some anti-infantry units that I will be needing.

It's not all about winning on the CM AAR screen neccesarily anyways, but also backing yourself to the end and doing the best with what you were given vs what you were up against.

Lt Bull

[ May 25, 2006, 06:15 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]