Where are my QB units gone after purchase ?

[Soma]

When playing Qucik Battles I prefer to buy my units.

But last time I played as the defender (allied probe) with 300 points and spend them on 4 units (Panther, Jagdpanzer, 88 AT and a Panzerschreck team).

After starting the QB only the Jagdpanther and the Panzerschreck team showed up (the Panther and the 88 were AWOL !

No red numbers while I bought the units, all were "on map", no sign of something that I did wrong.

And this happens every time I play QB !

Please tell me what I do wrong; or is it a bug ? Could not find anything via search in the forums so please drop some infos on this topic.

Thanks,

Martin

[MeatEtr]

In the QB settings, the casualties is on either 10% or 20%, I forget what the default setting is. Just change it to none and your good to go.

[Joachim]

300 points? IIRC the Panther is 200+, the Jagdpanther 200+, the 88 around 100. So I guess the casualty level was well above 10-20%. More like 50%.

The Jagdpanther and the Schreck should be worth approx 300pts - that's what you could spend.

Gruß

Joachim

[Soma]

It's a little embarrassing for me, but exactly that was the problem.

I've read the manual a while ago and thought I can play without reading it again.

My fault, because I also thought that casualties refers to the casualties within a unit.

Again, thank you for your answers and happy gaming,

Martin

[McIvan]

300 points? IIRC the Panther is 200+, the Jagdpanther 200+, the 88 around 100. So I guess the casualty level was well above 10-20%. More like 50%.

The Jagdpanther and the Schreck should be worth approx 300pts - that's what you could spend.

Gruß

Joachim

It's more like 10% or 20% chance (or whatever) PER UNIT that they disappear.

So, with a very small force pick, some bad luck can chew a huge hole in your points.

[Sergei]

With casualties on, you get more points to spend but after the purchases are done the value of your force is reduced back to what was originally chosen.

And yes, it is a dangerous thing to do with very small force with lots of vehicles, because unlike infantry, with vehicles it won't do to them partial casualties, either you get the tank or it's lost. So it is more reliable with bigger forces or infantry only.

[dieseltaylor]

It is however very much more historical to be playing with depleted units - usually the infantry. However platoons of tanks etc would often not be at full whack.

Anything over 1000points is good for me with casualties on. It also adds greatly to the fog of war. It is particularly true of games using the BF default settings which are very prescriptive as to exactly how many points goes on armour etc. Anyone with an ounce of sense can then work out what the opposing player can afford in tanks if the purchase pot is 1000 points. Not so easy if it were 1500 points.

The added advantage is that if you are aware you could lose units you tend to buy in platoons or companies. This is highly realistic compared to the cherry-picking that goes on in most QB's - you know the I will buy a Panther for this , a Tiger for that, etc.

My favourite sort of game total is 3000 with 10% or 20% casualties on huge maps. This encourages more light unit purchases as flanks need to be covered. This is generally on unrestricted units and training. Seems very popular with the people I play.

A greater fog of war is to be had by using random casualties which REALLY makes the fog of war heavy.

[JasonC]

To explain the mechanic in more detail, since it may have gone by too fast in the previous comments, the QB force selection system has a feature allowing battles with *depleted* forces, representing losses from previous fights. This is meant to give "ragged" formations, since often commanders had to make do with the *survivors* of previous rounds of fighting.

The way this feature works, is that you are given *more* than the rated size of the battle worth of points at the *force selection* stage, to represent the *original* strength of your unit, before its earlier fights and any losses they inflicted. Then the computer will *randomly* delete portions of the force you picked, one unit at a time, to bring you back *below* the allowed total points for the fight size. The portion of the force that needs to be deleted varies with the "loss percentage" selected. But it also gets "lumpy" with a force consisting of a few high value units, because the "loss depletion" process will pick a unit and drop it until the point total is below the allowed level - and *won't* add back anything removed, just because you went way below the allowed level.

So you can wind up with many fewer points than the allowed amount, if the last item lost to depletion was a big one.

If you don't want this to happen, and you instead want to pick the exact force you will fight with, then you just need to set the "losses" variable in the quick battle screens to 0 (no losses, fully intact forces).

If the loss ratio is modest, 10 or 20%, then you can also reduce the chance of it making a big difference, by avoiding "lumpy" force mixes that put nearly all your points in a few "big ticket" items. Increasing the overall scenario size will also reduce the "lumpiness" of the deletions, compared to the size of the total force.

I hope this helps.

[Kingfish]

*Thanks* "Jason" *that* "was" *very" *helpful*.

[dieseltaylor]

*Depleted Forces*

A unit may be at full strength in wartime but would still not fight with 100% of its men - Col. Wigram commenting on his fact find on UK forces in WW2 Italy explains :

(6) LOB

Whatever we say about it at home the facts are that a Bn leaves a

certain nucleus out of battle.This usually comprises the 2 i/c,

2 i/cs of each Coy, and about six NCOs or men per P1.

This practice should also be recognised at home, and Bns handled

in training minus these percentages.

The size of the Sec should be increased if possible

to allow for it a; the present size was determined on

the assumption that there would be no LOB.

and

The PI in action is almost invariably twenty-two strong and of whatever Regt good or bad

A 1944 UK squad would be 30 infantrymen plus 2"mortar and

PIAT and 4 man HQ. I assume that Wigram is talking purely of the infantry and not of the HQ - I have no idea if the PIAT and mortar are included but I suspect they were.

So if you claim to be playing an historically accurate game it does seem a bit rich to be fighting with 100% of your force.

It is conceivable that the low figure is a reflection of illness, leave, men physically able but not trustworthy in combat - a figure of 3-4%.

I am sure an examination of armour will reveal rarely that all tanks were ready and able to be on a battlefield.

[dieseltaylor]

On re-reading Jason's post I think it is wrong.

Firstly what your original force was is irrelevant as the increased purchase limits allow you to buy units you could never have bought previously. The reasoning therefore is faulty on that premise though it is an elegant attempt to rationalise the situation in the game.

Firstly, if my armour limit was 217 and by casualty rate [50%] the limit was increased to 315 I could then buy say a Tiger, or possibly two lesser tanks, which was impossible under the lower limit. I do run a risk the Tiger may not arrive of course but the chance of the two lesser tanks both not appearing is totally unlikely

Secondly, the BF schizoprhrenia:

There is a certain idiocy in the hard limits that BF give. For instance in a 1500 point game the Germans in theory can make 4 battalion purchases. IF you use the combined arms parameters not one of the battalions is an allowable purchase:

May 1944

Grenadiers - 1281 points - 18 points over in artillery

Jager- 1498 points - 18 points over in artillery, 8 points over in support weapons

Fusilier - 1362 points - 41 points over in infantry, 18 points over in artillery

Aufk- 1319 points - 56 points over in support

With 10% casualties all become affordable. Though why the limits could not have a 10% soft limit is worth pondering.

Why is it important to worry whether you buy a battalion or not? It is a matter of cost and it would seem that someone at Battlefront was keen for people to play at batallion [the occasional French spelling creeps in] level.

For instance in a Fusilier battalion I pay:

24 points for a squad ,18 for an HMG42

Company level

28 for the platoon/squad and 22 for the HMG

Separately

Platoon is 33 points, HMG is 29 points

As for the Allieds they could never afford any battalions at 1500 limit and given the cost benefit of buying units more cheaply you can see the German player has a considerable advantage that many players do not appreciate.

However on 50% casualties the Allies can afford battalions. The reason to go for higher casualties rate is the intrinsic support costs tend to be very heavy so the doubled limit is handy. US Infantry battalion costing 1870 points has 579 points of support assets and the doubled limit is 720 is therefore handy. A rate of 40% giving 600 is adequate but restrictive.

Points per squad purchase

25 at battalion

30 at company

35 points

That is a hell of a difference and it comes back to the point of why this feature was put in. I am all in favour of historically accurate purchasing but it does seem bizarre that at a 300 point game you are paying the highest prices for every unit.

[JasonC]

Why do you have "combined arms" on, if you want to buy battalions?

It is called "unrestricted".

And no, my comment was not wrong as to the mechanic or its rationale. Your fixation on allocation percentages and the combined arms setting, is merely your own quirk.

[dieseltaylor]

I think I have mentioned previously my preference for unrestricted but I seem to be in a minority.

Perhaps my eagerness to explain why casualties is important both for historical accuracy, fairness, increased FoW, and to negate the problems of the BF force selection system has muddied the waters.

My explanation of the parameters and the effects on purchasing with no casualties was I hope an adequate illustration. To explain it more clearly I will ignore the Combined Arms parameter though most people use that.

With unrestricted spending limits on 1500 points with no casualties the Germans can afford all their four battalions and the Allies none. A little inequitable given the hugely reduced purchase costs.

Artillery is always restricted but by going for casualties you can double the limit and if you are fortunate you will receive all of it.

This may seem unimportant but the limit at 1500 points with unrestricted purchase is 262 and the Germans can purchase 13 different modules of artillery. The US only four. If you were under the impression the Allies artillery arm was a strong one this is a bit of a blow. However with 50% casualties you may be able to buy what you require for your battle.

So if you meet someone who suggests no casualties and a 1500 point limit I suggest you opt to play the Germans : )

[JasonC]

If you think it is "fortunate" to end up with a force consisting almost entirely of artillery modules, you have a different problem playing CM.

[costard]

If you think it is "fortunate" to end up with a force consisting almost entirely of artillery modules, you have a different problem playing CM.

I'm pretty sure your comprehension skills failed you on that one Jason.

[JasonC]

"arty is always restricted, but going for casualties you can double the limit and ***if you are fortunate you will receive all of it***"

A typical arty point limit is 25%, 50% loss setting will let you buy up to 50% of the point-level as arty points "and if you are fortunate you will receive all of it", thus having a force consisting of 50% artillery.

If one thinks that a recipe for QB success, it would be because one thinks stuffing more points into the arty category than the usual limits allow, is a recipe for QB success. With armor it can be better to have over the limit amounts, with arty is simply isn't. A modest amount is a decent combined arms counter to infantry heavy, especially middling woods maps. But half the force spent on arty is a recipe for being outnumbered in tanks and squads, and arty shells don't rally.

You aren't going to get more than the point total of the fight size by "being fortunate", you are only going to increase the arty screen portion of your force. This isn't going to give you an in-game edge because the arty screen is not systematically underpriced in bang for the buck terms. Indeed, in CMAK in particular it is clearly and significantly overpriced.

The underpriced items are thick fronted armor, small guns, the better infantry AT teams. Vanilla AFVs and squads are about average. Everything on the vehicle screen, thin armor, the largest guns especially with rariety on, and arty modules are overpriced.

But it is all a quibble. He was trying to say the casualty system can interact with the percent allocation system to result in a wider variety of allowed force types. But then, since the allocation system mostly sucks and it is better to flat turn it off, as near as you can, with the "unrestricted" setting, this is pretty irrelevant.

[costard]

Thanks for the clarification - turns out my comprehension wasn't.

Arty doesn't take and hold ground, for that you need infantry. It does prepare routes for advance though - so if you believe you have the uber troop advantage (through command skill or perceived quality of the troops themselves) and you get lucky, you can fight the second part of the battle in defense, where your numerical disadvantage isn't so pronounced. Or come up against an opponent who knows how to counter the use of your artillery, bleeds you dry then comes on in and stomps on your outnumbered units.

Managing odds is one part of the tactical toolbox - but managing the men and machines and the plan is most of it.

[Merkin Muffley]

I guess what Jason is trying to say is that his detailed explanation was correct in describing the result as long as you don't play with anything other than unrestricted. Or small battles.

[dieseltaylor]

I feel slightly hurt by the lack of faith in the readers of this Board to use commonsense in their battles. But firstly:

A typical arty point limit is 25%, 50% loss setting will let you buy up to 50% of the point-level as arty points "and if you are fortunate you will receive all of it", thus having a force consisting of 50% artillery.

JasonC

Lets clear up the mathematical inaccuracy. The "Unrestricted" setting for artillery, which I mentioned earlier, is 262 in a 1500 point battle so doubling that can only give you a 525point pot. Therefore in the event that you decided to spend as much as you can on artillery and you received it all a third of your force would be artillery not 50% as Jason suggests.

The amounts change in 1500 point assault battles where with the attacker has a 903 artillery limit out of 2580 and the defender 525points. So roughly a third. The need for casualties is reduced but I would still play with some casualties on for realism.

Secondly,

You aren't going to get more than the point total of the fight size by "being fortunate", you are only going to increase the arty screen portion of your force. This isn't going to give you an in-game edge because the arty screen is not systematically underpriced in bang for the buck terms. Indeed, in CMAK in particular it is clearly and significantly overpriced.

This I find curiously myopic as when I buy lots of artillery very rarely is it bangs for buck that is important. To reduce a village with 8" artillery may be tactically a very good decision and save time and lots of infantry lives.

However most of the time I would be buying mortars to give me smoke screens to get to highly useful positions without losing valuable tanks and/or infantry. I think my record for smoke screening is roughly 14 turns to cover a huge flanking move during an assault.

I do agree that artillery is overpriced but again the game/BF bias is worse against the Allies. The tactical superiority gained by buying cheap mortar units for 81points [German conscripts], who have a choice of 4 or 6 tubes, is considerable. The Allies would be spending 103 points [uS conscripts 6 tube] or 138 points [uK 4 tube]

I am glad that the benefits of Unrestricted are being promoted but hope that the benefits and effects of casualties is also being taken on board.