Explain to me how H2H point costs are fair

Explain to me how H2H point costs are fair (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

rbrunsman -> Explain to me how H2H point costs are fair (1/2/2003 2:13:22 PM)
I just spent an hour comparing costs between the US and Germany in H2H and it seems very lopsided in favor of the US. Examples: Would you buy an M8 Greyhound for 37 pts or an Sdkfz222 for 42 pts? That answer is obvious, but pick any German Armored Car or Recon AFV and there is no comparison to the value of the M8. Would you buy an M4A1(76)W Sherman for 100 pts or a PzIVj for 104 pts? Again, a quite obvious choice. Would you buy an MG42 for 36 pts or a .50cal MG for 31 pts? How about an M9 Bazooka for 22 pts or a Panzerschrek for 25 pts? Would you rather have US Airborne squads (12 men) sporting M9 bazookas for 37 pts or Falschirmjaegers squads (10 men) sporting the Panzerfaust 30 for 37 pts. In June 1941 US snipers are 10 pts and German snipers are 15 pts. The .30cal MG Jeep with 4 front armor costs 16 pts. The German MG Jeep costs 18 pts and has no armor at all. 2-man US recon team costs 6 pts; German = 9 pts. US 4-man Patrol costs 8 pts; German = 15 pts. Another: In June of 1941 for 124 pts you can buy ONE Regular German Infantry Platoon (1HQ of 5 men, 4 Squads of 10 men each) or you can buy TWO US Platoons composed of 1 HQ of 5 men and 3 squads of 12 men each) and still have 18 pts left over to buy a .30 cal MG Recon Jeep (with armor of 4 in front)! That works out to 45 Germans against 82 US troops plus a Jeep!!!:eek: :eek: And don't get me started on the HTs... I didn't really compare the tanks but I'm certain the disparity continues. I really don't understand how H2H is fair.:confused: :confused: I've read Goblin's arguments about the cost of units but I didn't realize it was this big of a deal until I started playing H2H. And I play with C&C Off like most people do so please don't just say that with C&C On the Germans really kick ***. That would just mean H2H has to be played with C&C On which I am not inclined to do. Thanks for helping me out here.

Orzel Bialy -> So far.... (1/2/2003 9:04:50 PM)
as has been pointed out and debated to death in Goblin's thread about this....I guess it all comes down to the desire to try and mimmick "production and availability". :( While that is a very novel approach for those who want to portray a campaign in a very historical manner...it is, for the average PBeM player, (who just wants to fight it out)....less than desirable.

Goblin -> (1/2/2003 9:08:20 PM)
See, I am not a doomsayer!! A Goblin is honest, hardworking, kind, and helpful.... Shut up, Jess. :mad: You too Orzel. :mad: I just started giving my German opponents 10% points in H2H. I haven't played enought to see if it had balanced it again. Maybe you could try too, and then we will compare notes? Goblin:)

Belisarius -> Good idea (1/2/2003 9:29:22 PM)
Let us know how it goes, Gob! 10% sounds about fair, in a 5000 point battle, it will give the GE side an additional platoon of tanks. Or a company of infantry. Should balance things nicely.

Orzel Bialy -> "You too Orzel"... (1/2/2003 11:03:52 PM)
what? Did I say anything??? ;) Jeez, take a "few" pot-shots every "once in a blue moon"...and someone figures you to post smartass remarks all the time. :D ps...Bel, it is a good idea. Wonder where Gob's been stealing them from lately? lol :p

Redleg -> (1/3/2003 1:06:02 AM)
I think more of us could benefit from Goblin's handicap idea. Heck I used to offer the German 20% just so I could play the Soviet side. ;) Where does it say that both sides must have exactly the same number of points and that the costs of things should be "fair". Forget about the default settings and use new settings to construct the battles you want to play.

Jim1954 -> (1/3/2003 1:19:18 AM)
Study history. It's not balanced or fair very often. In order to ensure success, attack where the enemy isn't (and other philosophical sayings). :)

rbrunsman -> (1/3/2003 1:21:58 AM)
10% sounds low to me when you look at my example of the use of 124 pts to buy regular infantry. For that extra 12 pts I could buy one recon jeep (without MG). Those jeeps used to be a dime a dozen, now they are so expensive you would never use them. I'd rather have H2H set up so that you know you have an even match if you have even points. I guess in a 10K battle 10% may be OK, but in a 3-5K battle, 10% is nothing. One of the first things people ask for in PBEMs is to have rarity turned off, so why did Panzer Leo go to all the trouble to mimic "production and availability" when setting point values? It doesn't seem like something that many players are interested in. I like the new units H2H offers and the German language is not really that hard to get used to, but I am really discouraged by the point system which is the heart of the game. I think a "sticky post" with a debate and resolution of what is a fair and balanced handicap setting should be done so that there can be a concensus on this topic. Getting killed and also killing someone because we don't know what a proper point balance is is not very fun gaming.

mogami -> point values (1/3/2003 1:34:28 AM)
hi, I don't think comparing numbers tells the whole story. The experiance level of units is part of their cost. I'd prefer that IVj at 104 points over the Sherman 76 for 100 (the IVj will score more hits) If however all units have the same experiance and weapons ratings then they should cost the same.

Redleg -> (1/3/2003 1:37:56 AM)
I think it would be very easy to adjust a handicap up or down from 10%. It seems to me that about 20% would be workable. Personally, I think the entire point system is broken beyond repair in SPWAW so I don't think about it very much. If the main form of battle was not meeting engagements, which seldom occurred, the point differential wouldn't be important. In an advance or assault mission, it is very easy to make these rather minor adjustments while the endless negotiations over artillery, air, landmines are being resolved. IOW, I believe if more realistic attack scenarios were played, a lot of the point problems would go away.

VikingNo2 -> (1/3/2003 1:38:19 AM)
Lets play a couple straight up you can have the US I'll take the Germans. Depending on how well I do we can try 10 % If you look at the Atry, German stuff is cheaper than US now, we all know how arty is very important

Redleg -> (1/3/2003 1:40:45 AM)
Goodness! Please don't get me started on artillery!

mogami -> numbers (1/3/2003 1:41:18 AM)
Hi, Sometimes I must chuckle at persons who wish to play the Germans but also want to have "fair" "even" battles. And on top of that they also want to have their Tigers.

VikingNo2 -> (1/3/2003 1:45:01 AM)
Also, I have noticed that with H2H AT rifles are much more dangerous, Russian and German.

rbrunsman -> Re: point values (1/3/2003 5:23:11 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]hi, I don't think comparing numbers tells the whole story. The experiance level of units is part of their cost. I'd prefer that IVj at 104 points over the Sherman 76 for 100 (the IVj will score more hits) If however all units have the same experiance and weapons ratings then they should cost the same. [/B][/QUOTE] The Germans pay more than base cost for their equipment precisely because they are more experienced. Thus, the numbers do tell the whole story IMHO. The actual price you pay on the buy screens should match up as in: Any Main Battle Tank costing 130 pts from any country should be roughly equivalent whether it is due to small gun, heavy armor, great experience; avg gun, avg armor avg experience; or any combination of characteristics you chose to compare. To require new players to understand that the points don't mean what they appear to mean will discourage new players from joining our ranks. As for the choice between a PzIVj and a Sherman (76)W look at the armor and gun of the (76)W, it is way better than the PzIVj. The only thing better on the IVj is the targeting/rangefinder values of 5/5 for the IVj vs. 4/3 for the (76)W. I don't think that is enough of an advantage to outweigh all the other qualities of the (76)W. But to each his own.

rbrunsman -> (1/3/2003 5:31:43 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Redleg [B]If the main form of battle was not meeting engagements, which seldom occurred, the point differential wouldn't be important. In an advance or assault mission, it is very easy to make these rather minor adjustments while the endless negotiations over artillery, air, landmines are being resolved. IOW, I believe if more realistic attack scenarios were played, a lot of the point problems would go away. [/B][/QUOTE] What great leader said, "A battle is won before the first shot is fired." Or something to that effect. That may be true but slaughters don't make for good War Games. Players presumably play to win (or do their best) and have a good time doing it. I, for one, want to have an even chance against an equally qualified opponent. The H2H point system doesn't make this an easy thing to set up. The best battles are hard fought and determined by play (tactics), not historic restrictions/limitatioins. Otherwise why not change the name of MatrixGames to MatrixRecreations (aka "Mostly Boring Battles for the unfortunate sole destined to lose the battle.")

rbrunsman -> (1/3/2003 5:36:02 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VikingNo2 [B]Lets play a couple straight up you can have the US I'll take the Germans. Depending on how well I do we can try 10 % If you look at the Atry, German stuff is cheaper than US now, we all know how arty is very important [/B][/QUOTE] Just so everyone is clear, you would have kicked my *** in this battle even if you had given me the 10% point advantage. I am getting a thorough thrashing here. I'm not griping because I'm getting killed. There are no hard feelings about it. You've played well as usual and I've played right into you hands this time.

rbrunsman -> Re: numbers (1/3/2003 5:40:24 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami [B]Hi, Sometimes I must chuckle at persons who wish to play the Germans but also want to have "fair" "even" battles. And on top of that they also want to have their Tigers. [/B][/QUOTE] You didn't see me complain about the cost of Tigers and Panthers. They are very expensive as they should be. I think you can buy 3 good (using the term loosely) Shermans for the cost of one Tiger. I usually play the Germans by default because I don't care what country I play and usually the year is determined by the US player that wants to get his hands on those M9 Bazookas. I prefer pre-Tiger battles myself.

rbrunsman -> (1/3/2003 5:42:13 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VikingNo2 [B]Also, I have noticed that with H2H AT rifles are much more dangerous, Russian and German. [/B][/QUOTE] Panzerfausts still suck in my short experience. How do the Panzerschreks do?

VikingNo2 -> (1/3/2003 6:09:18 AM)
I don't know I was talking about the Rifle, I can't remember its name( now it in German ) but it can talk out a Geryhound on down :eek:

Redleg -> (1/3/2003 7:03:46 AM)
I think there are too many variables to say that a certain number of points for each side is "even". It depends on many factors such as Vis, terrain, nature of the battle, location of v-hexes, etc. Next, the somewhat startling "National Characteristics" kicks in. As far as I can tell, these characteristics alter every thing in a secretive way that so far remain a mystery to me. After one gets past all of that, the issue of other things such as what is agreed upon in the way of ground rules enters the picture. All of the preoccupation with points seems to assume that there is some reality in the price structure and national characteristics. If you believe that, I have some land behind the house for sale. ;) It is easy to change the settings but it seems that very few people seem to bother. I just don't get it. But I am trying to understand.

tracer -> (1/3/2003 7:10:39 AM)
I know I'm in the minority here, but I agree with Mogami that many are underestimating the value that 'country characteristics' and experience adds to German units in SPWAW. Maybe its just my style of play, but the current pricing structure (with all preferences at default) seems very balanced.

tracer -> (1/3/2003 7:16:52 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rbrunsman [B]Panzerfausts still suck in my short experience. How do the Panzerschreks do? [/B][/QUOTE] Better kick than an M9, but ([I]big[/I] but!) they don't come with HE ammo so they can't fire at infantry. I'm playing a PBEM set in 1949 right now and panzerschreks are an option for [I]U.S.[/I] troops...what's notable is that they cost more than M9's.

rbrunsman -> (1/3/2003 12:39:47 PM)
All my griping could just be growing pains of course. I know the units so well in v7.1 that I can mostly glance at the units and make valid comparisons. H2H is so new and different to me that it is like learning to play all over again. I mean, I don't have the comfort level established to know that my choices/decisions are good ones. I'll surely give it more time to sink in.

Goblin -> (1/3/2003 2:27:49 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tracer [B]I know I'm in the minority here, but I agree with Mogami that many are underestimating the value that 'country characteristics' and experience adds to German units in SPWAW. Maybe its just my style of play, but the current pricing structure (with all preferences at default) seems very balanced. [/B][/QUOTE] As I have stated before, I have now played alot of games as and against the Germans in H2H. The experience means squat. A 5 point experience difference is a huge price break for the Allied nations, and no decrease in effectiveness. The country characteristics do not appear to do much. I think the pricing problem began when the nation stats were readjusted. I fought alot of battles as the Germans in 7.1, and they usually were very close and fun matches. Now they are not. There must be something that changed. I feel a bit insulted that Mogami suggests that people who like to play the Germans enjoy having some sort of advantage. If played in 7.1, they do not have one. If played in H2H, they most certainly do not have one! Goblin Goblin

rbrunsman -> (1/3/2003 11:59:43 PM)
Tracer, it could be the quality of your [U]opponents[/U] that leads you to believe the current H2H system is fair. I would surley like to see the DAR of you (GE) fighting VikingNo2 (US) in a 5000 point meeting engagement on a small map. If you give VikingNo2 a run for his money then I will start looking at my own play style, but I think I'm pretty good myself (in v7.1 anyway). The only country characteristic that is very noticeable to me is the Russian tendency to switch to ready status from routed if you aren't careful about shooting at them.

mogami -> Sorry Goblin (1/4/2003 3:01:52 AM)
Hi, Goblin I would never try to insult you. I might have poked too much fun. I have a hard time telling the serious threads from the ones we can joke in. To make it up to you. When I get 7.1 and H2H from Jess I'll let you take any allied country you want with 5k points in head to head. I'll take the poor Germans with 3.5k You'll feel better after beating the snot out me and I'll get a chance to see for myself.

Goblin -> (1/4/2003 5:41:58 AM)
Lol, That's ok, Mogs, I know your intentions were not sinister, lol. Remember, you took the French against my Germans once. Anyone who does that, and maintains his composure during it, gets 10 free 'forgives', lol. Goblin

mogami -> rematch? (1/4/2003 7:01:08 AM)
Hi, OK you can teach me head to head. My 3.5k French versus your 5k Germans May 1940. But you must post all your comments in German and I must post all mine in French Ne soyez pas un ver comme le chien l�che de porc

tracer -> (1/4/2003 7:53:38 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rbrunsman [B]Tracer, it could be the quality of your [U]opponents[/U] that leads you to believe the current H2H system is fair. I would surley like to see the DAR of you (GE) fighting VikingNo2 (US) in a 5000 point meeting engagement on a small map. If you give VikingNo2 a run for his money then I will start looking at my own play style, but I think I'm pretty good myself (in v7.1 anyway). The only country characteristic that is very noticeable to me is the Russian tendency to switch to ready status from routed if you aren't careful about shooting at them. [/B][/QUOTE] I'm simply offering my observations; if something needs to be fixed I'm as keen as everyone else to get it done. But anyone seeking an answer to a problem should get all the info they can, even conflicting data, to arrive at an honest solution. My 'style of play' comment was meant to be deprecating...as in "maybe I'm missing something". I've started a couple battles against VikingNo2 but under v7.1, both times as the German player. Unfortunately they ended prematurely (once due to an OOB error and then a crashed hard drive); we have a third scheduled...Greg? In the interest of science? :D The only change I'd suggest is making it GE vs SO; the US has a few 'training wheels' that may skew the results (bazookas and the persisent 'fast arty' bug). I'm not looking for a "told you so!" outcome; if there is a discrepancy I want to know about it.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.671875