This has gotta be fixed!

[Jumbo]

When playing a ME in a QB where the units are purchased, there is ALWAYS an unfair battfield-asset advantage for the German player -always. Especially in AFVs & vehicles. I especially noticed this while playing the German side. It soooo was REAL easy to win then.

Everyone take notice.

To alleviate this, we have to give the allied player 10-25% more points. If your opponent isn't a close friend or completely trustworthy, this then allows the allied player an opening to CHEAT & pick more units than what makes the game fair.

We then have to have the opponent's point total to be displayed to each player to know for sure if the game as even.

Of course, the REAL solution is to make the unit costs more fair & raise the cost of the German units -for gameplay's sake.

I bet players who only play the German side will disagree with this.

CMBO is a game afterall, isn't it? Why then, isn't it a fair game?

Happy New Millenium to all!
Jumbo

[Tiger]

ummm...yeah whatever. Someone's started their New Year's Eve drinking binge already http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

john

[dNorwood]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger:
Someone's started their New Year's Eve drinking binge already http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

john<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah. I remember my first beer...

[Jumbo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dNorwood:
Yeah. I remember my first beer...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above two posts insinuate that I'm either an alcoholic or I'm a teenager. I can assure all that I'm neither. I've been wargaming for more than aquarter of a century.

Hey Tiger and dNorwood, are either of you guys a CM player that only will play if he gets the Germans?

[dog6880]

jumbo i agree i get lots of nasty replys from lots of nasty people.
i dont know what you are saying because i am new to this game but any imbalance in any game is unfair and ruins the game, and should be fixed. Thats why no one wants to play a senario where we invade gold or sword beaches, or one where the germans smash the polish or french. what would the point be? so if there is an unbalance it needs to be fixed.

if people grumble and the game desiners dont do it because of that then everythign the company has said about quality war games witht a twist of reality is bust. cant have quality games that are unequal.

[Germanboy]

Funny - now why don't you just go and count the results at the RD ladder or any other ladder and come back here telling us how much more often the German players win? Oh sorry, I don't believe you have a case, so I must be one of those only playing the Germans, eh?

Choosing the Germans is no help for people who lack the skills for decent play. When losing against the Germans it is of course a lot easier to blame it on the 'unfairness' of the game, rather than your own tactical ineptness.

Have a nice day.

------------------
Andreas
Der Kessel (http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html)

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[dNorwood]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumbo:
The above two posts insinuate that I'm either an alcoholic or I'm a teenager. I can assure all that I'm neither. I've been wargaming for more than aquarter of a century.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both were lighthearted and judgemental attempts to communicate that your post came on VERY strongly (in fact, it was too strong and judgemental to be taken seriously).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Hey Tiger and dNorwood, are either of you guys a CM player that only will play if he gets the Germans?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't answer your question as asked - but =I= prefer to play Allies (preferably American) for no good reason. And I lose with regularity - but in my case it's because I'm a bad player not because of the inherent disadvantage the Allies are obviously heir to. (Excuse me, to which the allies are heir to).

[GI Tom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumbo:
When playing a ME in a QB where the units are purchased, there is ALWAYS an unfair battfield-asset advantage for the German player -always. Especially in AFVs & vehicles. I especially noticed this while playing the German side. It soooo was REAL easy to win then.

Everyone take notice.

To alleviate this, we have to give the allied player 10-25% more points. If your opponent isn't a close friend or completely trustworthy, this then allows the allied player an opening to CHEAT & pick more units than what makes the game fair.

We then have to have the opponent's point total to be displayed to each player to know for sure if the game as even.

Of course, the REAL solution is to make the unit costs more fair & raise the cost of the German units -for gameplay's sake.

I bet players who only play the German side will disagree with this.

CMBO is a game afterall, isn't it? Why then, isn't it a fair game?

Happy New Millenium to all!
Jumbo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Jumbo, your post makes absolutely NO sense.

Let's dissect it. Please explain your entire first paragraph to me. How is there ALWAYS an unfair advantage for the Germans? Is it due to your perception of the quality of the German equipment, or your lack of knowledge on how to use Allied equipment?

In your second paragraph you say we HAVE to give the Allied player 10-25% point advantage. That is incorrect, Meeting Engagements can be setup for exactly the same amount of points to be distributed to both sides. If one side has more points, the game will notify you of this. (Unless you set it up that way.)

In your third paragraph you state what a REAL solution would be in your opinion. Well, I would suggest you do a search on unit cost and you will find volumes of information to read on this board.

I love the comment about "only players who play the German side will disagree with this". That's a beauty right there. I've played the Allies in PBEM's more times than the amount of days you've been inhabiting this board according to your profile. I've won plenty as the Allies in an even meeting engagement. I've lost plenty too.

And finally, your last about why isn't it fair. It is very fair. You just need to brush up on your combined arms tactics and learn to use the equipment you have on the field.

Have a Happy Millenium!

Gi Tom

------------------
To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich.

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...i agree i get lots of nasty replys from lots of nasty people<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one was being nasty, notice the smiley face. Jumbo is looking for someone to fight with, hence his main topic and then his subsequent reply. Obviously he did not get sufficient response/attention yesterday when he posted a similiar topic, so now he's trying to turn up the heat and basically call people who like to play the Axis cheaters.

Jumbo I think BTS knows a little something about their design and if it needs "fixing" they will. If the Axis have this large advantage over the Allies then it probably would have been fixed by now knowing BTS. That said, I've been beaten plenty of times in quick battles by Allied AI and Allied players. Stop looking for excuses as to why you lose as the Allies and improve your tactics instead.

john

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GI Tom:
Is it due to your perception of the quality of the German equipment, or your lack of knowledge on how to use Allied equipment?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OWNED! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif

------------------
---------
No bastard has ever won a war by dying for his country. They won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

[Jumbo]

Ok, point taken.

But it still stands true that with an even number of points for both sides, the German player ends up with MORE battlefield assets than the Americans. It doesn't matter how "good" a player you are. I guess that someone with all KTs in an all armor battle could lose.

If both players are even in skill, the player with the greater number of battlefield assets usually will win. Anyone ever hear that the one with last tank, squad,or bullet wins? To me the strength of CM should be evident in a contest between players of equal skill. Not the opposite.

Create a German force with all the teams of a good combined arms force. (infantry, artillery, tanks, FBs, etc....) Notice the cost. Next create an equal American force. (Same numbers of infantry, tanks, etc...)Then COMPARE the costs and you'll see a wide disparity. A 4,000+ German force costs the American player more than 6,000 points! Not so much for the British player though.

What I'm talking about isn't crazy or fanciful. Its real and it isn't right. It should be fixed IMHO. Thank you for listening.
Jumbo

[Jumbo]

To give the Americans 10-25% more, you have to set the scenario limit (say 2000pts) and the axis player can only use (say 1500 pts), so the American player can even the playing field, so to speak.

It is numbers, not the unit quality.

Take two players even in skill with forces of equal quality and I will bet that the German player will win because his unit costs are less -and hence will have more units. Who will be left owning the battlefield with EVERYTHING being equal? A force of eight tanks or the force with only six tanks? He had eight because they COST LESS. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

I am not trying to pick a fight. If anything, I've been a helpful member of this board since my entrance in it. I'm just trying to point out something that isn't readily apparent and yet it has profound affects on the gameplay.
Jumbo

[Jarmo]

I don't believe there's a problem.
But anyway, I went and checked the results from the Rugged defense
tournament, round 2.

It's a tournament where every player plays the same meeting setup from
both sides. With different purchases, of course.

54 total games, 29 german victories. One undecided. 24 allied victories.
While that's noe exactly even, there certainly is no strong tendency
for the german side to win.

[Michael emrys]

I'm not trying to pick a fight either, Jumbo, but I have a few unanswered questions in my mind. Have you actually compared the point cost of German and Allied units of equivalent capability and experience? Keep in mind that most German infantry squads have only nine men whereas American squads come with twelve men, for instance.

I've noticed another thing the AI does when buying units is to sometimes go for quantity over quality (experience). This may have effected the games you have observed.

When BTS designed the game, they rated the unints based on their estimate of how much they were really worth on the battlefield. Notice the use of the word 'estimate' in that sentence. Others might look at the same data and draw different conclusions, or have other, equally good or better data. If you have a case that you can support, by all means present it. BTS has shown many times over the years that they will heed and respond. Just be prepared for a vigorous rebuttal.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Michael

[Bigdog]

What game are you playing Jumbo? 4000=6000 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/confused.gif You should play using Fionn Kelly's Short 75 or Panther 76 rule. If you check out how infantry points are you will see that a company of US comes with Zooks & Motors, while as German's don't, you have to purchase your support separately and a German squad has 9 men & a US has 12. Its not that big of a difference. Now I play as Axis mostly and I have lost and I have won. It has more to with tactics than the points, I make some bad moves I lose. My opponent makes some bad moves he loses. Work on tactics, that's what wins games.

Big Dog

[Jumbo]

Thanks Jarmo,
Of course the point that I'm trying so hard to make is between players of an EQUAL skill level.

The NUMBER of battlefield assets always comes out in favor of the Germans because of their low cost. Its where things start out, that I'm concerned with.

I cannot speak for the quality of skill regarding the tournament's participents and yet I'm sure that there are participants there with a very high level of skill. Congratulations to all of them.
Jumbo

[GI Tom]

Your perception is incorrect. You cite zero examples, zero tests, zero anything. You say that the German can buy eight tanks and the Allies can only buy six. Well, eight of what and six of what?? Your post still makes no sense. It sounds as almost if you got wasted as the Allies in a game or two and your perceptions are inaccurate.

As a matter of fact, I believe your all wrong. Firstly, the unit Quality AFFECTS the cost of each unit, which will determine what you can put on the field. If your playing the Germans as nothing but Green or Conscript, yes, you'll be able to purchase more than the Allied player if they have Regular or Veteran troops. And then, that only depends on WHAT you purchase. Your assuming that any tank for the Germs is equivalent value for the Allies, and vice versa. That is woefully incorrect. Each asset has a value that when used PROPERLY, is well worth more than anything you can buy. The value is based on the CAPABILITIES of each unit, and what it can do. You just have to learn what those capabilities are and how to use them.

Do a test man, you'll see that as Regular troops for German Heer forces versus American forces, both values set at Regular quality, I can buy more as the American than as the German. Here's a test I just did. A 3000 Meeting Engagement. Force Quality Regular. All Armor. I could buy 17 Tiger Tanks versus 24 M4A3 Sherman Tanks. Your telling me with that I'll ALWAYS win because I have 24 Sherms vs 17 Tigers?? Grr, boy, you've got some learnin' to do!

I still don't understand your definition of battlefield assets. To me, anything on the field is an asset. According to you, the more assets you have, regardless of type, with play skill being equal, the one with more assets will win. That is just incorrect.

GI Tom

------------------
To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich.

[JoePrivate]

Jumbo, I really think you are talking nonsense and sour grapes here. Anyone you disagrees with your assertions only plays the Germans? That is just plain pathetic.

You do realize that BTS has tweaked the categories restricting how much the German side can spend? ie, in a 1500 point ME the German is only allowed 300pts on armour while the US has 450 pts to spend. Anyways I followed your suggestion for a 1500pt ME with the following results:

German

1 SS Mot. Company(4 HMGs/2 Mortars)
1 SS Rifle Company(2 HMGs)
1 Panzershreck
1 120mm FO
1 81mm FO
1 234/1 AC
1 Stug
1 PantherA

US

1 Rifle44 Company(3Bazookas/3MGs/3Mortars)
3 Rifle44 Platoons
1 4.5" FO
1 81mm FO
1 JeepMG
1 M4A3
2 M18 Hellcats

Now, this looks pretty even to me(I just picked them off the cuff) and I would have no problem playing and winning as the US with this force. I can't see 'what isn't right' here at all except a perception problem on your part.

Cheers.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumbo:
Of course the point that I'm trying so hard to make is between players of an EQUAL skill level.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why I used that example. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif
EVERYONE plays both sides. That pretty much ensures there's
exactly the same total amount of skill on both sides.

BTW, that number of units way of thinking is just plain weird. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 12-31-2000).]

[Sgt Schulz]

Sorry but I can't help but post on this matter. I do a lot more reading then posting but I feel I know a bit about this subject. This situation reared it's ugly head in an all too similar Modification to Atomics Close Combat 3. When a very knowledgable group of individuals got together and reworked almost the entire game and came up with the Western Front Mod. I know what you are saying...."This isn't Close Combat...." I completely agree but the simularities are still there. These individuals, much like BTS went through painstaking hours of work to turn a game based on the Russian-German aspects of WWII, into a game containing vast amounts of information and a quality (money worthy) product that was free to anyone. Well anyway one of the problems was that German armor vastly superior, (armor thickness, gun size) the costs did not corespond to this, giving anyone playing the krauts a distinct advantage. I do understand that everything does come down to player ability, I wholeheartedly agree on this fact, 5 years of playing CC2 and CC3 online has taught me nothing but humility. But, on that note I must also agree with Jumbo on that fact that if you are given the same points down the line, (points representing availibility of equipment, and or supply) you have to admit aquiring 6 Mark IV's to what?...a couple few sherman 76's(representing gun power equality)or so in CM. This very same problem occured in West Front Mod of CC3 and had to be corrected multiple times. Both games are far and away the best in there respective areas Close Combat being Real Time and all. I have nothing but good things to say about Combat Mission, believe me it took nothing short of perfection to pull me away from CC3, so I say keep up the excellent work BTS!!

------------------
"D-Day was a nightmare. Even now it brings pain to recall what happened there on June 6, 1944. I have returned many times to honorthe valiant men who died on that beach. They should never be forgotten. Nor should those who lived to carry the day by the slimmest of margins. Every man who set foot on Omaha Beach that day was a hero."

General Omar Bradley-

[Moon]

Hm... I "think" what Jumbo really means is that the Germans have more variety in their "vehicle" forcepool than the US. The German player can choose several lightly armored vehicles with "big guns", whereas the US player has little beside the Greyhound in his "vehicles" slot that has more than some machineguns.

This is a "problem" which I have mentioned already during testing a couple of times, but it's tough to make a strong case for a change, since so much depends on opinions and there is little hard facts.

However, I do still think that things would be evened out a little by moving some units which are currently in the Armor slot to the Vehicles slot. M7 Priests, for example, as well as the M8 HMC's and some others. This would nicely balance the availabe unit options between Germans and US in my opinion AND at the same time allow "mechanized" units to be more comparable to the US Cavalry TO&Es.

Just some thoughts...

------------------
"An hour has 60 minutes, each minute in action has a thousand dangers."
- Karl-Heinz Gauch, CO 1st Panzerspähkompanie, 12th SS Panzerdivision

[Jumbo]

GI Tom,
Boy? Personal attacks about age are better left out of this forum.

A battlefield asset is anything on a battlefield that can be used to reduce the enemy. If you have the numbers, quality of the "equipment" is not as big a concern -when the quality of the troops are the same.

Here is a test:

Create a German force with ALL the teams of a good combined arms force. (infantry, artillery, tanks, FBs, etc....) Notice the cost. Next create an equal American force. (Same numbers of infantry, tanks, etc...)Then COMPARE the costs and you'll see a wide disparity. A 4,000+ German force costs the American player more than 6,000 points! Not so much for the British player though.

It may not be that the German costs need to go up. It may be that the American cocts may need to come down. I understand that combat effectiveness in CM is important in considering the unit's cost. The combat effectiveness of the Sherman was only high because of it's numbers and not because of it's inherent quality as a medium tank in battle. Both sides didn't call them ronsons for nothing.

So here we have a catch-22. The Sherman's combat effectiveness is high, mainly because of their numbers and hence they are given a relatively high cost and yet you cannot have a high number of them because of their high cost in CM. It is totally non-historical.
Jumbo

[Gremlin]

Why the emphasis on the number of units or troops? Sheer numbers don't in any way guarantee a victory. Comparing German and Allied tanks as if they were interchangeable makes little sense historically or in CM.

------------------
War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman

[Triumvir]

That you're saying that a Sherman has low combat effectiveness signals to me that you're not using them properly. Shermans are infantry killers and should be used as such. If you put them up against tanks, they'll die in short order.

A lot of the problems you seem to be running into can (and I hate to sound like David Aitken) be resolved by using actual doctrine. Put tank destroyers against tanks and tanks against infantry.

Why don't you post your definition of a combined arms team (which, by the way, if it takes 4000/6000pts to build is rather big by CM standards) for both Germans and Americans? Saying that it's "got all the elements" doesn't quite cut it.

Oh, and BTW, I'm not American and even I know that using "boy" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with age.

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So here we have a catch-22. The Sherman's combat effectiveness is high, mainly because of their numbers and hence they are given a relatively high cost and yet you cannot have a high number of them because of their high cost in CM. It is totally non-historical.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You started off by saying the game should be made more fair for all by increasing the cost of Axis units. Now you think that you should be able to have more tanks and units than the Axis, regardless of unit performance simply because you're playing Allied. Your original points have been refuted with examples. Units... infantry, armor or otherwise, are not equal in performance nor cost (their cost reflects this) so you can not do a straight Allied -- Axis numbers, as someone has already pointed out. You're playing a shell game but people already know what shell the ball is under.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, I do still think that things would be evened out a little by moving some units which are currently in the Armor slot to the Vehicles slot. M7 Priests, for example, as well as the M8 HMC's and some others. This would nicely balance the availabe unit options between Germans and US in my opinion AND at the same time allow "mechanized" units to be more comparable to the US Cavalry TO&Es.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yeah! Put the Hummel and Wespe in the vehicle category as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>you have to admit aquiring 6 Mark IV's to what?...a couple few sherman 76's(representing gun power equality)or so in CM<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when do Sherman 76's equal Panzer IVs in gun quality. I do not think you have played much CMBO to believe this. Panzer IVs can and do get taken out by greyhounds and other Allied ACs.

German tanks are at a disadvantage against the Allied armor because of slow turrent rotation alone, not counting the increased HVAP use by the Allies in the last patch(es).

john

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Next create an equal American force. (Same numbers of infantry, tanks, etc...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The point GI Tom was trying to make (not to be confused with the point on top of his head, but that's another story) is that the NUMBER of units can't be compared. Each unit is priced according to it's capabilities, that's why an Elite squad will cost more than a Green squad or a Panther more than a Sherman. Therefore if you buy 2000 points of Panthers you'll be able to buy MORE Shermans with the same 2000 points. It may be (I'm too lazy to check) that US squads cost more than German squads, but if so it's because the US squad is MORE CAPABLE than the German squad and should cost more. Without trying to be insulting (a hard thing for a Cesspooler to do) I'd tend to agree that you had a couple of bad experiences and are making unsubstantiated generalizations.

Joe

[Jumbo]

Ok, Thanks to all who participated in this thread. I have a few things to think about.

Peace to all in this holiday season. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif
Jumbo

[Major Tom]

Take a look at the TOE's in the game. You will notice that US forces cost significantly more. For example, I usually play British/Commonwealth, and have noticed that a US Company costs significantly more than a British/Commonwealth company. HOWEVER, this is primarily due to squad numbers being 12 (vs. 10), being equipped with Semi-Auto M1 Garands, the fact that each Company has its own Heavy Weapons platoon (3 Zooks, 3 MMG, 3 60mm Mortors) vs. 3 British PIAT's and 2" Mortors per Company. Take a look at the TOE of JoePrivate's example. The German Companies have virtually no organic AT, Artillery, or HMG compliments!

US Infantry is more expensive, as, as a whole it is much more effective. Sure, a single German Motorized squad is more powerful than a US 44/45 Infantry Squad, but, a US Company is more powerful than a German Motorized Company.

Regarding tanks, it has been mentioned before that just taking a TANK vs. TANK comparison does not signify a tank's true value. Shermans are much better at taking out infantry formations than any other German main battle tank. Their turret rotation and rate of fire are also superior. As has already been mentioned, it doesn't matter of the US has a 37mm or a 76mm, Mark IV tanks will die fast and a lot if they get too close.


The problem that many people face, is, that it is EASIER to use the German forces, as, individually they are superior to an individual enemy. It is easier to move around one squad than it is to move around a coordinated platoon or company. Gaining the experience on how to move a combined arm force is important to successfully fighting with an Allied army. The strength of British/Commonwealth/American force are in their diversity of weapons in their Platoon/Company organization. Use the 2"/60mm mortors to supress enemy troops. They are fully equipped with PIAT's and Zooks to take out roaving Panzers.

One thing that I have noticed in PBEM QB's, is, that the Allied forces tend to get more Artillery spotters when the auto select option is used. Using artillery officers, and the Allies have some of the best ones (British 3" spotters are cheap and deadly! Never go to war without them!), are important to defeating German Infantry, and even these pesky heavily armed Armoured Cars. If you want to see the reverse argument (that German tanks and stuff are too inferior) try buying some M5 Stuarts instead of M4 Shermans. They will rip apart your Pz II Lynx, Panzer IV's, as well as those darned 50mm Puma's.

IF the German force has its costs increased, or the Allied force has their costs decreased, EXPERT Allied players will have a field day with ANY German opponent. I have won and lost with both the Allies and Germans in many PBEM games. I see no problem in costs, and I credit my defeats to poor positioning and ill planned strategy.

[Vanir]

Ok, I set up a 5000 pt QB, meeting engagement. I purchased things the way I would have in an actual 50-60 turn game, which is why you don't see any crewed MGs or on-board mortars (I only use them in defense). All units are regular quality. Prices are for November '44.

Germans:

18 x 44 Rifle Squad (162 men)
18 Shrecks
6 x 81mm mortar FO
3 x 120 mm mortar FO
5 Mk V Panther G (late)
3 Sd Kfz 7/2 37mm flak
12 x PSW 234/3 AC

4967 pts total

Americans:

18 x 44 Rifle Squad (216 men)
18 Zooks
6 x 81 mm mortar FO
2 x 4.2 inch mortar FO
4 Easy Eight Sherman tanks
6 M10 Wolverine TDs
7 M3A1 HTs

4973 pts total

Note that the US gets 1500 pts in the armor category while the Germans get only 1000.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Moon:
The German player can choose several lightly armored vehicles with "big guns", whereas the US player has little beside the Greyhound in his "vehicles" slot that has more than some machineguns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a good point. Those 12 SPW 234/3s would be a pain for the US player. Perhaps the M8 HMC should be moved from the armor category to the vehicle category. If there is any imbalance it is here. Of course, the US does have much better halftracks. It's a close call.

Otherwise it looks pretty even to me.


------------------
You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV



[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 12-31-2000).]

[Major Tom]

Know what is a good counter to German armoured cars with heavy guns? The Daimler and the Greyhound. These tanks have 37mm and 40mm Guns, fully capable of nailing the light skinned Halftracks and Armoured Cars. I am in a PBEM agaisnt a British player with the Auto Select giving him a wack of Daimlers, which gave my armoured cars and halftracks a beating. They shouldn't be sent against German MBT's, but, they can clean up the light AFV's.

Sure, Puma's can take out Shermans, but, what can't? http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif


The thing about the German units, is, they tend to be VERY specialized. Either they are good at killing Tanks and bad at killing Infantry or vice versa. Allied vehicles tend to be more universal, neither supreme at one aspect, but, not pitiful at another. Shermans are probably the best all-round tank. Capable of killing the latest armour but still a good Infantry Tank. Their Infantry is better for both long, short, Infantry and AT opponents. German squads are usually more specialized (SMG Squads, HMG Squads, Rifle Squads, etc...). This is why Allied units are more expensive then they appear. They ALWAYS look sub-par (in comparison to German opponents) for whatever job they do, BUT, they can perform any job with good effect, this is where German forces tend to suffer. Try using a Tiger or Puma to kill a bunch of Allied Infantry!

[Zaraath]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GI Tom:

Jumbo, your post makes absolutely NO sense.
How is there ALWAYS an unfair advantage for the Germans? [...] you say we HAVE to give the Allied player 10-25% point advantage.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans DO have an advantage upgrading experience level, Regular to Veteran is about
a 15% cost compared to the 25% the Americans take. They also have better tanks, although not unbeatable, and more squad firepower per point of cost.

I can play with either side, in fact all my (RD) ladder wins have been as the Allies, but the Germans do have an advantage in QBs.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:
Try using a Tiger or Puma to kill a bunch of Allied Infantry!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the Tiger is an exceptionally good infantry killer. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif

It's the tank killing bit where it's not so good.
Can't hit anything and can't kill the big ones all the Quick battles
are full of. But the gun kills infantry real dead, MG's have plenty
of ammo, and it's near invulnerable to piats and zooks.

[aka_tom_w]

OK....


I would like to comment here as well.

What Allied factor (unit, weapon whatever?) counter balances the German Panzerfaust?

Those Damn things are plentiful and everybody and their brother as at least one or two of them.

I Prefer playing the Allies, and I like the British, but in a tight fight or an "even" Meeting engagement I think the balance falls slightly in favour of the Germans because of the abundance of 'fausts?

I can see this issue from all sides. Perhaps the Allies units are over priced? Steve and Charles are CLEARLY on record as stating that they are not. But the german tank killing ability with those short range 'fausts can be VERY irritating.

But on the other hand Close assaulting tanks with German infantry with a few 'fausts in their back pocket sure is FUN!.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-31-2000).]

[Andrew Hedges]

This whole topic is sort of odd to me because I usually play US in QB's, and I have never felt like I didn't get enough points -- if anything, I've always had a sneaking suspicion that Germans were overpriced, although that may simply be because I've played allied so much I don't know how to play Germans right.

But look at the squads -- US squads are 12, German squads only have 9, or, not infrequently, 8 men. While the firepower may be about the same, that won't matter if the squads are hit by artillery or long range tank fire. If German motorized infantry squad takes four casualties from artillery, it is at half strength and, while still battle capable, is just barely so. If a US squad takes 4 casualties, it still has as many men as the Mot. Inf squad started out with.

I understand the absence of Pfs, but I'd much rather have a .50 cal MG (in general, not as a substitute for Pfs). You can't rely on Pfs the way you can on Schrecks or Zooks, and the range is usually so short that you shouldn't get a shot at a prudent allied player. On the other hand, I've taken out lots of those pesky German HTs with .50 cal. fire, it's lethal a long way, and is good against infantry if there are no better targets. Hard to use on the attack, although I set them up as flank protection. And that German HT with the 75 has some ridiculously small number of shells anyway -- 13 or 15 or 18 rounds.

And American artillery is just wonderful. If I'm buying, I rarely buy more than 81mm mortars, but they're fantastic -- some ungodly number of rounds (150? 200?), and a quick response time.

I like Shermans a lot, too. Not against Tigers or Panthers, particularly, but against infantry or Mk IVs, they are fine.

I should add the caveat that I have not played a QB larger than 3000 points, so I don't know how things work out that size battle or larger.

You can find a lot of very detailed tactical advice on the forum. I don't think that I have a sufficient skill level to use a lot of it, but here are some quick tips for playing the allies in QBs. YMMV.

1. Depending on the parameters of the battle, have a mix of TDs and tanks. It's not bad to have a 75 Sherm or two for anti infantry, but that's up to you.

2. Hide your tanks and TDs (and HTs, etc) at the beginning. Don't just use the Hide command; actually hide them behind some woods or something. Then use the Hide command to minimize any sound contact.

3. Advance with your infantry, using .50 cals to cover the flanks, if this makes sense on your terrain.

4. Once your infantry has seen enemy armor, try to get it to button up with MG fire or mortars fire, and advance your TDs and tanks to take it out (you should probably advance them in a platoon sized unit). Ideally, you have the advantage here because you've identified his tanks and he doesn't know where your tanks are. Try for flank shots, if possible.

5. Infantry: unless you have Airborne or Engineer troops, try not to get in close combat with uninjured German troops -- there's a good chance that they have more automatic weapons than you and will eat you up at extreme close range. (But don't stand off too far, they also have LMGs with long range). Try for around 150 meters. Then try to hit them with artillery, espcially if they are in trees.

[Jumbo]

I want to modify my earlier statements. I expressed them as though the differences in gameplay were profound. AFTER continued research and after reviewing my thoughts on how I used the American tanks, I have to say that the difference isn't as great as I earlier believed. I believe that I've learned a lot.

Don't get me wrong, in a 3000 point QB with both sides enjoying veteran troops in an armor type of battle, the difference was about 152 points in favor of the Germans when trying REAL hard to make sure both sides had similar OOBs. That 152 points is basically a lone Sherman or such. There IS a difference. It IS there.

While my personal gaming hasn't enjoyed a very wide variety of opponents as some folks, I have enjoyed a rather comfortable record. I believe I've only lost 3 PBEM or TCP games. So, it wasn't sour grapes. I play for fun afterall and my manhood isn't challenged when I lose at a game. I've been wargaming for more than 26 years.

I'd like to thank all who responded in this message thread. I've learned that inflexibility is a fools errand and nothing more.

May all shots at your armor result in a ricochet. That is -until you play against me. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif
Jumbo

[Manchildstein]

if anything, the allies have the advantage.

just my opinion
andy

[Manchildstein]

--And that German HT with the 75 has some ridiculously small number of shells anyway -- 13 or 15 or 18 rounds.
--

actually, you speak of the spw250/8. Take a look at the spw 251/9... has 49 rounds of capacity if i'm not mistaken.

..she 'explodes' really good too...

andy

[Manchildstein]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There IS a difference. It IS there.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i've been under the impression for some time that in meeting action (same points) QBs the americans are 'easier' to play than the germans.

the best way to get around all of this is to eschew quick battles in favor of pre-designed, balanced scenarios. then you won't have to worry about points.

in my experience, quick battles are a free-for-all and objective evidence is difficult to attain, given that most if not all qb players wont to 'cherry pick;' that is get the best price/performance ratio on a given unit.

for instance, the german sdkfz aa halftracks are probably worth more than you pay for them.

the american m8 hmc has a _high_ price/performance ratio. the germans really have nothing to counter it.

the m3a1 halftrack - especially when used en masse - with its .50 cal will knock out all most the german armored cars and halftracks in short order. the psw234 series may last a little longer, but those die pretty easily too.

so much of what happens in a quick battle is determined by how the two players try to 'outguess' the other in unit purchases, and the terrain and weather conditions.

so in the end, perhaps you are correct. i will have to 're-assess my previous assessment.'

andy

[Monte99]

Geez, Jumbo knows how to set a topic on fire anyway.

But somebody on this board, I forget who, disposed of this sort of debate with an elegant observation: In CMBO, as in life, you're expected to win with what you've got.

------------------
"Arms are my ornaments, warfare my repose." - Don Quixote

[Monte99]

Geez, Jumbo knows how to set a topic on fire anyway.

But somebody on this board, I forget who, disposed of this sort of debate with an elegant observation: In CMBO, as in life, you're expected to win with what you've got.

------------------
"Arms are my ornaments, warfare my repose." - Don Quixote

[retarded_keydet]

Heh nothing like a realistic solution like that!

------------------
There was a long silence of rememberance for the dead, to which I added these names:
Ernst Neubach, Lensen, Wiener, Wesreidau, Prinz, Solma, Hoth, Olensheim, Sperlovski, Smellens, Dunde, Kellerman, Freivitch, Ballers, Frosch, Woortenbeck, Siemenlies...
I refuse to add Paula to that list, and I shall never forget the names of Hals, or Lindberg, or Pferham, or Wollers. Their memory lves within me.
There is another man, whom I must forget. He was called Guy Sajer.

[Ghost of the 90th]

Wow, everyone jumped down poor Jumbos' throat!

Jumbo,I was going to post something very similar. Glad you were here to catch all the flak http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif


I have had no success so far with the Allies. I have managed 2 draws and lost approx 8 times. I have never played a human opponent with Axis.

Here are some of my observations:

1 US tanks need to stay way the **** away from any Ger squad. Those damned PZfausts make every GER unit basically an Anti-Tank unit, unlike the Allies.

2 Although Ger squads maybe smaller they generally possess more firepower upclose due to there amount of machine guns.

3 In quick battles the GERMANS vehicle list is quite superior to the USA's. Thus they have more 75 mm guns running around then the USA. The 251/16 are nasty too. At least in a town and in the hands of an intelligent defender.

4 Ger armor is superior and without those thinskinned TD 76's and Tungsten rnds the Allies can forget it. One KT can dominate a whole QB. Shermans are only good from the flanks. And if you miss, goodbye.

Now all that being said, I maybe losing for other reasons, like;
1 I maybe to new, and have not climbed the learning curve yet

2 Maybe I am not using the USA units correctly and in their proper roles.

3 Maybe this game is better as a true historical game. Hey the USA had inferior ****, just more of it and the Germans were already defeated and did not have the resources to withstand our onslaught. Had they never tangled with the USSR and got sucked into that nightmare, their is probably no way short of nukes the West was going to be able to defeat them. Hey, I am an American who lost family in WWII Euor theater and I admit this freely.

4 the guy I play is a vet at this game and has a ****ing Genius IQ and knows more of military tactics and history then many. Makes nice scenarios too.

5 I got to find some opponents who is as bad as me http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif Then I maybe I will learn to win with Allies.


Till, then anyone know anygood essays for HOW TO WIN w/ALLIES http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

I am sick of getting spanked. Maybe I should try Germans.

FlamPanzer me at will! Like a Jumbo I got thick skin.



------------------
Ghost of the 90th
---------------------"The boundries of a country are marked by the graves of her soldiers."-Napoleon

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ghost of the 90th:


5 I got to find some opponents who is as bad as me http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif Then I maybe I will learn to win with Allies.
Till, then anyone know anygood essays for HOW TO WIN w/ALLIES http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif
I am sick of getting spanked. Maybe I should try Germans.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He he... I love the guys that think that switching to the Germans will improve their chances of winning. The fact is that CM is extremely balanced when it comes to unit point values. In other words, you can get a equally deadly force with the allies as with the axis.

The key to victory is knowing the strengths and weaknesses of both the allied and axis units and using this knowledge with the best tactics as possible... and a little luck.

[Gremlin]

Ghost of the 90th, a couple points about your points http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

1) I'd recommend keeping any tanks away from any squads. German squads may have Fausts, but a US rifle company has a weapons platoon with three zooks, and British squads have the organic PIAT's. Tanks have much longer range than personal AT weapons, so why give the latter a chance? (I know terrain doesn't always allow overwatch from hundreds of meters away, but you take my point.)

3) The Germans may have more 75's driving around, but frankly (coming from someone who mainly plays the Axis), a lot of them suck http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif They're often short 75's with relatively little ammo mounted in thin-skinned vehicles lacking fully traversing turrets. Like Shermans, they can be quite effective for infantry support, as you imply, but unless they're quick and lucky, they stand no chance against a tank.

***

Many people have spoken about German squad sizes in this thread. True, they're generally relatively small, but the German Sturmkompanie has Sturmgruppe squads of thirteen men with massive firepower: 283 172 87 43 0. It also has a heavy weapons platoon with two HMG's and mortars.



------------------
War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman

[Diceman]

Before they fixed the "bug", I used to set up mirrored games of randomly generated maps. That is to say my opponent and I would play two quick battle games, each taking a swat as the allied and axis commander. I almost always won or lost both games. I see little problem with the point system as is, and none for which I can think of a better method than the very thoughtful one in place.

P.S. BTS: I'd like to see a method of having mirrored quick battles implemented, pretty please? The old method of saving before selecting a country was functional, but I understand why you took out this "undocumented" and unmonitored feature.

------------------
Pair-O-Dice
"Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman."

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wow, everyone jumped down poor Jumbos' throat!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Jumbo saying that "I bet the only players that would object to this are players who only play Germans", probably did not endure him to alot of long-time players, Axis or Allied.

While some German infantry units have panzerfausts, American squads have rifle grenades which are very effective taking out German tanks at close range.

The Germans have no equivalent .50 caliber heavy mg; the MG42 just won't penetrate Allied Armored cars nor half-tracks very often. The puppchen at-gun would be the nearest equivalent I guess, but it gets taken out as easy as other field guns. It does have decent movement rates though and can usually stay fairly close in infantry advances.

I would have liked to see some of the Allied half-tracks mounting field guns or quad .50s in the vehicle list but maybe BTS ran out of time or they just weren't in use much.

john


[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 01-01-2001).]

[GI Tom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joe Shaw:
Next create an equal American force. (Same numbers of infantry, tanks, etc...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The point GI Tom was trying to make (not to be confused with the point on top of his head, but that's another story) is that the NUMBER of units can't be compared. Each unit is priced according to it's capabilities, that's why an Elite squad will cost more than a Green squad or a Panther more than a Sherman. Therefore if you buy 2000 points of Panthers you'll be able to buy MORE Shermans with the same 2000 points. It may be (I'm too lazy to check) that US squads cost more than German squads, but if so it's because the US squad is MORE CAPABLE than the German squad and should cost more. Without trying to be insulting (a hard thing for a Cesspooler to do) I'd tend to agree that you had a couple of bad experiences and are making unsubstantiated generalizations.

Joe

Ahh, Joe, Thank you. That was precisely the point I was trying to make, which was the point JUMBO listed from his first post. There is NO way to compare numbers of units evenly in this game. It boils down to the capabilities of each and how you use them on the field. Jumbo stated "There is ALWAYS a Battlefield asset advantage for the Germans" and I was refuting that point. And Tiger made an excellent point too in his post.

And finally, Jumbo, the word "Boy" that I used was not meant in the sense of your age, just in slang form as in "Boy-oh-Boy", that kind of thing. I apologize if it offended you.

GI Tom

------------------
To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich.

[Jumbo]

TRUCE already!!! The white flag went up a long time ago.

What's it gonna take???

What do you want? Blood????????????

[Major Tom]

Give yourself some time and experience.

When I first started, back in December 1999, I was getting slaughtered left and right by the multitude of German Panzerschrecks in Chance Encounter. Playing this as the primrary demo for almost 1/2 a year in PBEM was a real asset to fine tuning infantry and armour tactics. Eventually, I learned how to utilize US Armour so that they will survive against German AT and Tanks. Keep them, actually ANY AFV, away from forests/builings that might have enemy troops in them.

Panzerfausts aren't that spectacular either. Most of the German Platoons substitute Panzerfausts for Panzerschrecks. Panzerschrecks are much better for armoured ambush, as, if discovered you only lose a 2 man team, not an entire squad. A few losses will really sap the strength of a German squad, while British/American squads can tend to take more casualties and be more effective.

Sure, the Germans might have a lot more interesting AFV's with different types of weaponry, but, put those specialized halftracks up against something they weren't designed to fight and they won't last long.

[Big Time Software]

OK, some thoughts...

This has been debated several times before, in great detail. Not only general balancing, like Meeting Engagements, but also for specific units (like squads and Shermans). I think I can safely say that at the end of each debate the overwhelming majority opinion is that CM has it right and the one or two people complaining either haven't played enough or need some more tactical experience.

An example of the latter is Ghost of the 90th's comment about Panzerfausts (BTW, knock off the swearing). The correct tactic is to never get your armor that cose. It doesn't matter what side you are playing or what vehicles you are using in whatever quantity. Getting AFVs within 100-200m of enemy infantry is just asking for losses. So if the Allied player isn't doing this, he deserves to lose. The number of points is totally irrelevant.

Some more comments from Ghost of the 90th that illustrates why there is no problem:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1 I maybe to new, and have not climbed the learning curve yet<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most likely true. If you played the Germans vs. an experienced player, you would probably lose just as often.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2 Maybe I am not using the USA units correctly and in their proper roles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most likely true. Each side requires slightly different tactics. If you try to play the Americans like you would the Germans, all things being equal you will get spanked.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3 Maybe this game is better as a true historical game. Hey the USA had inferior ****, just more of it and the Germans were already defeated and did not have the resources to withstand our onslaught.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Partly true. At the tactical level, however, the overwhelming material advantage the Allies had was very often not evident. But in an evenly matched battle, as CM generates, luck and skill determine the outcome of who wins. Like many who have weighed in here, I too have absolutely no problems beating the crap out of people playing as the Allies http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4 the guy I play is a vet at this game and has a Genius IQ and knows more of military tactics and history then many. Makes nice scenarios too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since CM rewards sound and historically correct tactics, all else being equal the player that knows more about the proper use of tactics will most likely win. And it shouldn't be any other way.

There are also a bunch of misconceptions that can give the apperance of some sort of bias. The big one is that units are priced based on their capabilities, not on their production numbers. If anybody is interested in why this is significant, do a Search on "rarity".

Another example of a misconception was posted by Zaraath:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Germans DO have an advantage upgrading experience level, Regular to Veteran is about a 15% cost compared to the 25% the Americans take.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure why you belive this, because it simply is not true. The cost modification for Experience levels is the same for both sides, therefore the Germans have no advantage.

So... while some people might have the OPINION that there is an inbalance, I and others will strongly disagree. And because there is more "evidence" (like the RD ladder game results) that our position is correct, there will be absolutely no fundamental changes to the point system for CM1. CM2 will be done along the same lines, but with the addition of an OPTIONAL "rarity" system.

Steve

[Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
What Allied factor (unit, weapon whatever?) counter balances the German Panzerfaust?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was nothing in the American arsenal really equivalent to the Panzerfaust, which is why GIs were often eager to get their hands on captured ones. (According something I read, perhaps the memoir of General James Gavin, they became a standard "non-standard" issue in the 82nd. Airborne around the time of the Battle of the Bulge.)

The bazooka is capable of scoring kills, but usually needs a flank shot.

The Brits had the PIAT, but it wasn't fully equivalent to a PF either.

Michael

[Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gremlin:
True, they're generally relatively small, but the German Sturmkompanie has Sturmgruppe squads of thirteen men with massive firepower: 283 172 87 43 0. It also has a heavy weapons platoon with two HMG's and mortars.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It costs about 1.5 to 1.7 times what e.g. an ordinary security company (w/Hvy Wpns Plt and 9-men squads) would cost you IIRC. Not a sound investment to make in all cases, since it takes away a lot of flexibility. For the difference in cost you can almost buy another rifle coy, or some armour.

------------------
Andreas
Der Kessel (http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html)

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.