KG_AGCent Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 In playing several TCP/IP and PBEM games among a few of my friends I have noticed a fact with a lot of unhappiness around it: Regardless of the settings, Central, South, 1941-1945, rarity or none, etc. When trying to play a meeting engagement of 1500pts with combined arms setting the Russians are alotted 659 pts for armor and the Germans 360 pts. 2000pts its 480 axis to 879 Allies. Now, I avoid hisorical scenarios like the plague. That is simply a preference of mine. Many people like them, that is their preference. When looking back on history one sees that most battles sucked hard for one side or the other. Why would I want to re-enact that suckiness? I don't. Give me even ground and let's see who comes out on top. I like to have a fighting chance and prefer to rely on my skills rather the benevolence of a scenario desinger. There is no disrespect intended to the makers of fine historical scenarios. Their attention to detail and fetish for accuracy is a gift which they are kind enough to share with the rest of the us, the unwashed masses. One of my favorite battles of all-time is the massive Halpenny battle available from Der Kessel. To me this sounds like a correction that ought to be made. QB-ME's ought to reflect levels that at least approach parity for fairness sake. We have a battle editor for historical accuracy. There is a time when fun should take precedence over accuracy. I believe this is one of them. Does anyone have any suggestions for settings that might even things up a bit? If you're interested: Axis: Allies: Infantry 900 900 Support 360 360 Vehicles 450 240 Armor 360 659 Arty 187 187 Since I don't know any HTML or UBB or whatever, this chart I made isn't going to turn out right, sorry. KG_AGCent, out. [ October 01, 2002, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: KG_AGCent ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Damn! All those historically based scens I've played over the last couple of years in CMBO and now CMBB weren't balanced! Why didn't someone tell me? I could of been having a sucky time instead of enjoying what I thought were finely crafted, balanced battles. What a waste! Thanks for pointing out that the scenario designers have all been wasting their own and my time. Its QBs all the way now for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Uhm play unlimited then? Then you can use all your points anywhere you want as can you opponent hence you achieve balance. Not that hard really. Also I would not knock historical scenarios. First off they tend to be balanced, second off the discrepancy in force is not so out of whack in most battles at this level to prevent good tactics from winning out. Most importantly I am not quite sure what the big deal about the armour point difference is. You still get the points somewhere else right? You get more infantry or support weapons right? Funny how a couple of well placed (cheap) ATGs can end the day of a strong armoured force. Or how infantry can hold ground like nobodys business. Of course this takes into consideration that you using something approaching decent tactics. So what have we figured out? That armour is not the end all be all (BTW I am tank freak!) and that in a ME since you get equal points, then there is balance regardless. If you do not like the breakdown play unlimited as that is what it is there for (go figure!). Or else maintain some historical breakdown of your troops and whip ass. Totally up to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 I am not certain that even points spread necessarily means fair. I will skip the "playtested scenarios are quite fair" speech. Given the discrepencies in TO&E for the sides involved in CMBB. One major reason that the Germans have alot more points for vehicles is that the Soviets have almost no vehicles to speak of, and basically none that carry anything heavier than a .50 caliber MG after 1941. OTOH, the Germans have all kinds of interesting HTs with guns of all sorts. One key factor in the points spread is the division type. Soviet infantry divisions (the default) had alot more access to armor than German infantry divisions. Try setting it up as German Mech vs. Soviet Infantry. Then the tables turn--the Germans get slightly more armor points. There are more variables here at work, and unlike CMBO the forces are not nearly mirror images. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KG_AGCent Posted October 2, 2002 Author Share Posted October 2, 2002 Originally posted by KG_AGCent: Regardless of the settings, Central, South, 1941-1945, rarity or none, etc. When trying to play a meeting engagement of 1500pts with combined arms setting the Russians are alotted 659 pts for armor and the Germans 360 pts. 2000pts its 480 axis to 879 Allies.Keyword above is Combined Arms setting. If I wanted to play unlimited and face 17 KV-2's blah blah blah, I would. The limitations set by the C-A setting makes for a wonderfully balanced battle. It also forces the players to be multi-dimensional, ala Combined Arms. These battles are assuming even starting points for both sides. Giving 1 side a nearly 2-1 advantage in one of the most important catagories makes for lop-sided games in short order. Taking 300 points in armor and giving me 200 points in vehicles is hardly an even-up exchange. Now, I avoid hisorical scenarios like the plague. That is simply a preference of mine. Many people like them, that is their preference. No lectures necessary. There is no disrespect intended to the makers of fine historical scenarios. Their attention to detail and fetish for accuracy is a gift which they are kind enough to share with the rest of the us, the unwashed masses. Scenario makers and testers have nothing but my highest esteem. I just do not prefer their product. Kinda like knowing that $6 Burger at Carl's Jr. is delicious but you're not willing to accept the heartburn and gas that comes with it. We have a battle editor for historical accuracy. There is a time when fun should take precedence over accuracy. I believe this is one of them.The key word above is FUN! Perhaps my definition of it differs slightly from someone elses, but that ought not be cause to be castigated about beating up on scenario designers and testers, which I clearly and emphatically DID NOT. Thanks for your input wwb, much appreciated! AG, out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 I'll also skip the "playtested scenarios are more evenly balanced than QBs speech." The reason for the armor/vehicle points disparity has nothing to do with historical accuracy; the disparity was added to make QBs more balanced. The problem with making all armor/vehicle points equal is that the Germans have all kinds of "tank-like" vehicles, and the Russians do not. Specifically, after May '43, the only vehicles the Allies can buy are armed with MGs. (Before May '43, they can buy the BA-6 or BA-10, which is armed with a 45mm gun). The germans, on the other hand, can buy armored cars and half tracks armed with 20mm guns, 37mm guns, 50 mm long guns, and 75mm short guns. The larger guns on HTs can take out a T-34. A QB wouldn't be balanced if the Germans and the Russians spent equal amounts of points on armor, and then the German is allowed to augment his force with a Puma or a HT armed with a 75mm gun, while the Russian has to spend those points on vehicles armed only with MGs. Even if the German just bought a PSW 222 with a 20mm gun, he could destroy all of the Russian vehicles from across the board while having little fear of damage from the Russian vehicles unless he approached too close. Having different points is probably the fairest way to address this disparity. It's not perfect, of course, but the only way to have something perfectly balanced is to play a scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catnip Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 KG, I think what you need are some unit restriction rules like the Short 75 and panther 76 rule from CMBO. I fully understand how you feel when you are playing an 800pt or less game in 1941 as the Germans. With settings like that you probably can't buy a decent German tank, but the Russian player can get the KV, I think. Until somebody comes up with a CMBB short 75 rule, make up your own. Try early 1942 with no KV for the Russians and see how much better it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Tacticus Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 It could be an effort on BTS's part to create parity...basically, soviets get lots of "not so good at plinking tanks, but really good at blasting infantry.." tanks, and inflexable artillery - while the Germans get "damn good at plinking tanks" tanks and flexible artillery...( i've had 1 pz38t hold off 6 t26 {with 45mm}...that 45mm gun is the pits when tasked with tank plinking ) As always...if the soviet player can scrape together a KV of some sort the german is going to have to think really hard , but no "points system" is perfect (rarity helps a lot !), and quick battles are just that...not balanced scenario's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts