Jim Harrison Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 I just played B&T's training battle #1, what surprised me was that at 3000 vs 5100 pts the German was able to mount a 2 to 1 odds????? I am wondering why the US equipment is so much higher in buy points than axis equipment??? History would seem to indicate that we were able to produce TONS more equipment than the axis and at a much lower cost (since our equipment did not measusre up to axis stuff on a one to one basis). It would seem to me that at least US equipment should be less costly than axis stuff???? If this has been discussed a million times forgive me I am relatively new to these boards. BigJim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 What yuo say is true, however it's not a very good way to play balanced wargames. The point cost for anything is related to it's effectiveness in battle, not the number produced, or the actual monetary cost or the proportion of relative resource it took to produce. Using any other system makes games unplayabe except at a strategic level where you get to actually capture the resources yuo need to build al that stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Harrison Posted August 1, 2002 Author Share Posted August 1, 2002 Ok Mike but if effectiveness in battle is the criteria, how can US stuff cost more??. I can see no way that the Pershing tank is more effective than say a Panther or Tiger, to say nothing of King Tigers or Jadpanzers??? I suppose tho that your right about game balance. BigJim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 It is based on ammo, armor, carrying capability, and lots of other things. Rarity does NOT come into play. The armor on the front of the pershing easily bounced off a lot of the shells. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 Like Rune says! There are a lot of factors that come into play - armour, ammo load (what's the value of a 88mm gun with 40 rounds vs a 90mm one with 60??), mobility, number and calibre of MG's, speed of turret traverse, ground pressure (check out the cost differences betweeh the HVSS and non-HVSS Shermans) etc. Many of these also these apply to infantry. The normal US infantry squad is 12 men vs 8-10 for the germans, so straight away it's going to have 20-50% more weapons and hence cost. And the cost of the M1 Garand is more than the 98k rifle many Germans have due to higher its firepower factors, so that adds to it also. But wait, there's more!! Even artillery observers have differnt ammo loads, so different costs. IIRC a US 81mm obs gets 200 rouds while his German equivalent gets 150 (?) - so the German costs less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Manuel Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 Check this thread out: how come you have more tanks? It shows how BFC changed the Combined Arms pts. limts per country per category (i.e. infantry/support/armor/etc.) so that the Allies could get more tanks, reflecting their greater numbers. A lot more of the logic for *each* of the category limits is layed out, when they changed them during the 1.1 Patch. The 9th post down has a quote from Steve Grammont explaining how the force limits are a partial way of introducing "rarity" indirectly, since CM:BO doesn't really have rarity. [ July 31, 2002, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Harrison Posted August 1, 2002 Author Share Posted August 1, 2002 Thanks guys, I figured there were good reasoning behind the allocations I just couldn't figure it out. Good reading there Silvio, thanks for the thread reference. BigJim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 Originally posted by Jim Harrison: Ok Mike but if effectiveness in battle is the criteria, how can US stuff cost more??. I can see no way that the Pershing tank is more effective than say a Panther or Tiger, to say nothing of King Tigers or Jadpanzers??? Well.. King Tiger maybe, but a Pershing beats the hell out of Panthers and Tigers. And if you use the better maneuverability (damn that's a hard word to spell) and turret speed to your advantage, it can take out anything the germans have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts