(Full Version)

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



Message

Galka -> (11/17/2001 2:07:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Colonel von Blitz:
Hi everyone!
I decided to release my modified OOBs, I have some more ideas for modifications but I will wait v7.0 OOBs before making any more changes. Until then, comments about my modifications are more than welcome. Get them, and Peregrine Falcons excellent sound files too, at: http://www24.brinkster.com/vonblitz/spwawsounds.htm Colonel von Blitz [ November 14, 2001: Message edited by: Colonel von Blitz ]
Thanks Von Blitz. A regular player and I will give them a try in PBEM. What might be nice for future release might be tank hunter teams of 2 or 3 men. Say , I can't find those bunkers that hold 160 men. Did you say they were in the Czech screen?



Paul Vebber -> (11/17/2001 9:25:00 PM)

quote:

Except Lt Mortars?
I will check that out - thanks stuart



Colonel von Blitz -> (11/18/2001 8:49:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Galka:
Say , I can't find those bunkers that hold 160 men. Did you say they were in the Czech screen?
Don't have SPWaW installed on this computer, so I can't check. But if I remember correctly you can find the bunker with carry capacity of 160 from Czech screen, under Misc and under Fort-button, I believe it's called "bomb shelter" there . But of course, as with all forts, you can buy them only if game type is Assault/defend. Colonel von Blitz



Jacc -> (11/18/2001 11:58:00 PM)

And you can always do the dirty trick: buy some Wurfrahmer 40s and ammu dumps - and any enemy tank on your path is busted.



Colonel von Blitz -> (11/19/2001 5:35:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by James Coscinu:
And you can always do the dirty trick: buy some Wurfrahmer 40s and ammu dumps - and any enemy tank on your path is busted.
If someone wants to ruin the game by playing like an a**hole, then that's his/her business...it's too bad there are individuals who do this Colonel von Blitz



Galka -> (11/21/2001 4:15:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Colonel von Blitz:
If someone wants to ruin the game by playing like an a**hole, then that's his/her business...it's too bad there are individuals who do this Colonel von Blitz
Problem is Von Blitz, if your not an ass and buy the rotten werfers, and rare tanks, and elite infantry; the other guy will. And then you'll be a schmuck. Which is worse? I was changing some OOB values when I ran into a cap. It seems that the game doesn't accept more than 255 points for an AFV. It's too bad, because leveling the playing field is going to be the only way to make PBEM fair.



Colonel von Blitz -> (11/21/2001 10:58:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Galka:
Problem is Von Blitz, if your not an ass and buy the rotten werfers, and rare tanks, and elite infantry; the other guy will. And then you'll be a schmuck. Which is worse? It's too bad, because leveling the playing field is going to be the only way to make PBEM fair.
I disagree. People should start agreeing the rules before they play. It shouldn't be that hard talking to your opponent and for example agree to use historical units and compositions, agree that one can use rocket launchers but use them only once without reloading them...or if it's a long lasting battle, agree that after firing, you can use them again after...let's say after 15 or 20 turns or so. All I hear is whining, whining and more whining how the game is unbalanced. Game is unbalanced if one buys million Maus tanks and 500 thousand wurfrahmens. I've never had problems in my PBEM games, because me and my opponents agree the rules BEFORE playing. For example, I have currently underway a quite a large battle (map size 100x240, points for both ~7000), and we agreed to play using historical OOBs and TO&Es...I have soviet heavy tank brigade + Anti-tank regiment and my opponent has...only god knows, I believe there will be Tigers. But that's ok, because he has to buy also CS-panzers as they were part of Schweres Panzer Kompanies. This means that there will be no Tigers worth 7000 points, which also means that the battle will be quite balanced. Come on! Agree on rules and units allowed before playing and stop whining about unbalanced game Colonel von Blitz [ November 21, 2001: Message edited by: Colonel von Blitz ]



Warhorse -> (11/22/2001 12:27:00 AM)

Yeah, it really helps to communicate about parameters! I have not run into one person yet, who whines about parameters, this one guy I've played many times now, usually kicks my butt, but his forces are always very realistic, this time he has a nice mixture of Pz Ivg and IVH, and yes, at least one tiger that I can see, but never hordes of the stuff, very enjoyable!!



Galka -> (11/24/2001 4:17:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Colonel von Blitz:
All I hear is whining, whining and more whining how the game is unbalanced Colonel von Blitz
But last week you said.... 3. Changing the whole cost-system is what I'd prefer, but the amount of work to be done to achieve this is overwhelming. So I choose to price units as now, but I trust players to know about the actual rarity of different equipment and hope that players buy stuff that isn't necessarily state-of-the-art but what was actually used at that time Colonel von Blitz [/QUOTE] I dunno. I still think that If a Tiger Kill ratio against T-34s is 4:1, it should cost four times as much. That would save a lot of extra communications and potential misunderstanding between players. I understand about TO&Es, but how often in the real war did full strength regiments and battalions go up against each other? And what of a Kampfgruppe, a common yet non-tabled fighting group. I think it's great that your opponents and you have wonderfully balanced games. Would you play a game with me, to demonstrate your methods?



asgrrr -> (11/24/2001 6:58:00 PM)

I have to agree that the cost of units should be assigned more creatively. I remember Panzer general and the sickly pricing system (entirely based on the factors). Even if a piece of equipment is completely useless, that does not of itself reduce the cost of its procurement. Of course, with the number of units this is A LOT of work, and questionable if this would be worth the effort. The rarity factor also makes this less relevant, as you can't spend all your points on tigers anymore. If the rarity system could be expanded a little, with more differential values, I would be content with the present pricing system.



pax27 -> (11/24/2001 8:33:00 PM)

I donīt play alot of PBEMīs but I just have to raise a question of the proposed "you should get the same killing power for the same point cost" from Galka.
Wouldnīt this mean that the only battles one would fight is ones where you could beat any major country with any piece of dirt equipment. If it takes a thousand 28mm ATīs to wipe out a Tiger, should the cost of a Tiger be a thousand times that of the 28mm AT unit? And how difficult wouldnīd this system be to implicate! Iīm exaggerating ofcourse, but only to get my point through
Iīd say a system like this would completly negate the advantages of playing different nations in different stages of the war, and it would definitely make it pointless to buy a Tiger or equivalent.
Were talking golf handicap here
Again, I donīt play alot of PBEM, and maybe this is what you look for in a game in that type of game.



Galka -> (11/24/2001 11:31:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by pax27:
I donīt play alot of PBEMīs but I just have to raise a question of the proposed "you should get the same killing power for the same point cost" from Galka.
Wouldnīt this mean that the only battles one would fight is ones where you could beat any major country with any piece of dirt equipment.
Again, I donīt play alot of PBEM, and maybe this is what you look for in a game in that type of game.
Well, this certainly is a PBEM issue. Hey , I'm not saying I'd like Italy to take on the Ruskies in an armoured battle and win every time. I'd like to see an incentive for players to select units that represented standard equipment used in mass during WW2. Example. Right now it might not be prudent to pit a M4A1 against a Tiger. That's because Tigers can be had for less than a 2:1 cost ratio, when there killing power when played correctly is more like 4 or 6:1. If a Tiger cost 4 times as much and a MkIV was nearly equalivent in cost to a M4, the incentive is to purchace fewer Tigers and more MkIV's. (But a skilled player could on average take out 6 or more M4's if playing the Tigers role correctly). [ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: Galka ]



john g -> (11/25/2001 12:51:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Galka:
Well, this certainly is a PBEM issue. Hey , I'm not saying I'd like Italy to take on the Ruskies in an armoured battle and win every time. I'd like to see an incentive for players to select units that represented standard equipment used in mass during WW2. Example. Right now it might not be prudent to pit a M4A1 against a Tiger. That's because Tigers can be had for less than a 2:1 cost ratio, when there killing power when played correctly is more like 4 or 6:1. If a Tiger cost 4 times as much and a MkIV was nearly equalivent in cost to a M4, the incentive is to purchace fewer Tigers and more MkIV's. (But a skilled player could on average take out 6 or more M4's if playing the Tigers role correctly). [ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: Galka ]
This topic comes up every couple of months. People that don't like the point value system because they feel they are spending too much for x equipment vs y equipment. Look at it this way, since a bazooka armed unit can take out a tiger with one shot, it should by your reasoning cost as much as the tiger, and since a hmg can take out dozens of bazooka teams then it should cost 12 times as much as a bazooka team. Leading to the rediculous situation of a hmg costing 12 times as much as a tiger or nearly 50 times as much as a sherman. Rock paper sissors comparisons don't work you have to compare similar weapons used in the same manner. The only unit type I have issues with the cost are the ammo dump/carrier, due to their ability to expand the combat power of friendly units via reloads I would cost them about 1000 points for the dump and 600 for the carriers. That would stop the wurf/ammo carrier combo that is the bane of anyone fighting Germans. Perhaps the current formula understates the importance of armor thickness, or weapon accuracy, but it comes out in wash. If you are willing to recalculate values for every unit in the game and submit them for approval, then perhaps your argument has merit.
thanks, John.



pax27 -> (11/25/2001 1:33:00 AM)

Youīre making my point john g, but maybe the range on 1-250 is not enough though. And I do understand what Galka wantīs with this discussion.
But in real life (most guys/gals on this forum is heavily in to realism) the cost of differnt tanks from idea to battle field differed a lot. Some nations were just better at the logistics of war I guess. I seem to remember someone mentioning the US in that area... well, quantity before quality has to pay off in some areas
And while weīre discussing costs, wouldnīt a support unit in Poland be a lot less expencive then one in North Africa?



Galka -> (11/25/2001 12:14:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by john g:
Look at it this way, since a bazooka armed unit can take out a tiger with one shot, it should by your reasoning cost as much as the tiger.... If you are willing to recalculate values for every unit in the game and submit them for approval, then perhaps your argument has merit.
thanks, John.
Well I apologise if I implied that every unit had to be rehashed. My idea was to deal with the glaring anomalies within the current otherwise sound cost structure. I suggest that at least 10 veteran PBEM players are needed to playtest a series of OOBs before matrix is approached to consider the new values. The idea is that the 10 testers will list all units that they feel need a adjustment (limited in increments of up to 10%) until overall balance is acheived unanimously. This approach I feel is better than relying on the bias of one individual. The 10 testers would have to be willing to play others via PBEM/Online, over a period of time which could last months. BTW, about the Tiger and the Bazooka. If you leave a Tiger unprotected so that a Bazooka, Molotov, Panzerfaust, or Grenade wielding infantry could get that close, It's a failure on your part not the systems The first units I'd bump up in price would be
Tigers I and II (Subject to a point cap of 255)
Elephant/Ferd/Sturmtiger
Nashorn/other 88 and 128mm eq AFVs
Panther Variants
SdKfz 11
Onboard Nebel, and Werfer units Katytushas and the like.
Ammo dumps and Carriers
88At Variant, US 90mm At(to discourage use).
All Mobile Flame units.



Colonel von Blitz -> (11/25/2001 5:45:00 PM)

quote:


3. Changing the whole cost-system is what I'd prefer, but the amount of work to be done to achieve this is overwhelming. So I choose to price units as now, but I trust players to know about the actual rarity of different equipment and hope that players buy stuff that isn't necessarily state-of-the-art but what was actually used at that time.
These are my words and meaning was that I'd like to change the cost system, not because I feel that the game is unblanced. Balance can be achieved in very different ways. I meant that on the other hand I'd like to see cost system that is built for every country so that it would reflect the actual composition of their army (common equipment is cheaper and rarer units would cost more, now units are more priced similarily for every country (more armour and heavier gun, more expensive).
quote:

Originally posted by Galka:
I dunno. I still think that If a Tiger Kill ratio against T-34s is 4:1, it should cost four times as much. That would save a lot of extra communications and potential misunderstanding between players.
I do not find this useful, as one of the posts show...Bazooka can kill a Tiger in on e shot, thus it should cost as much as tiger. One HMG can kill twelve Bazookas, thus HMG must cost 12 times as much as Tiger etc.
quote:


I understand about TO&Es, but how often in the real war did full strength regiments and battalions go up against each other? And what of a Kampfgruppe, a common yet non-tabled fighting group.
Units were full strength about 5% of the time (wild guestimate ). I didn't mean that one should buy units while other eye is looking at the TO&Es. Use creativity but bearing realism in mind. In my current PBEM game I have Soviet Heavy Tank Brigade: 42 x KV-1S, 1 x Mot Inf Btn (two companies), 1 x 82mm mortar bty, 1 x 37mm AA-Gun Bty. In addition, I have one AT rgmt, 16 x 76mm ATGs. I dunno if this kind of group ever existed, but main point is that it was composed of REALISTIC brigades and regiments. I had possibility to buy million ( ) batteries of 203mm howitzers and with that arty, one can blow away several Tiger-Battalions...though Soviets had a lot of arty, I didn't buy that amount of howitzers
quote:


I think it's great that your opponents and you have wonderfully balanced games. Would you play a game with me, to demonstrate your methods?
Sure thing, I can usually do 1 turn/day or 1 turn/two days... E-Mail me: jarno.harma@lut.fi Colonel von Blitz



john g -> (11/25/2001 8:50:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Galka:

BTW, about the Tiger and the Bazooka. If you leave a Tiger unprotected so that a Bazooka, Molotov, Panzerfaust, or Grenade wielding infantry could get that close, It's a failure on your part not the systems The first units I'd bump up in price would be
Tigers I and II (Subject to a point cap of 255)
Elephant/Ferd/Sturmtiger
Nashorn/other 88 and 128mm eq AFVs
Panther Variants
SdKfz 11
Onboard Nebel, and Werfer units Katytushas and the like.
Ammo dumps and Carriers
88At Variant, US 90mm At(to discourage use).
All Mobile Flame units.
So any unit you don't like fighting against is costed more? How about ob 380mm arty, US .1 delay fo's, or any bomber carrying 1000lb bombs? To expand on your comment about anyone letting the AT team getting close, how about anyone who lets that Tiger sit off at range with a perfect los blasting away without smoking it's view or suppressing it with arty or aircraft attack? That tank is worthless if it has been bombed back to the stoneage, which the the US does quite well. At which point an M10 rolls up and blows a hole in it without chance of retribution. Tanks are just smoking heaps of scrap metal if attacked correctly, no matter what they cost to buy.
thanks, John.



Paul Vebber -> (11/26/2001 1:03:00 AM)

IF any of you guys want to take a look at the v7 oobs and see what has been changed price wise (I rehashed the formula once again) Let me know. A couple things: If you want the cost to mean something in pbem it has to based on the "game model" of the unit - ie the values in the OOB. THe "formula" I use (actually a a whole spreadsheet of formulas) does this on a "even" basis within main types. Then the types (arty, tanks, inf, etc) are scaled to each other a bit. So costs have nothing to do with how many were produced or King Tigers would cost 1000 and T-34s 10. Value in battle is not a static thing, so any attempt to give a single point value to a piece of equipment is fundamentally flawed, but its what folks are used to. So we muddle along the best we can.



Galka -> (11/26/2001 2:24:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by john g:
So any unit you don't like fighting against is costed more? Nope, I usually play German, and still find they have an advantage when weighed down with first rate armour. I just think they should pay for it. To expand on your comment about anyone letting the AT team getting close, how about anyone who lets that Tiger sit off at range with a perfect los blasting away without smoking it's view or suppressing it with arty or aircraft attack? That tank is worthless if it has been bombed back to the stoneage, which the the US does quite well. At which point an M10 rolls up and blows a hole in it without chance of retribution.
This might seem like a silly question, but ..Do you think Tigers are too easy to kill? In my experience M10s are not superior at range to Tigers. At present your 1000 pts gets you 6 Tigers and 8 M10s. It's no challenge for the Tigers to Pick off the M10s loosing one or two units in the process. Have 8 M10s, or 9 M4A1s on 3 Tigers, have a better chance, and reflect the reality of the Allies defeating the Axis with quantity. Having the Tigers cost basis raised in increments of 10% and tested is better than a knee jerk 50-100% cost, which might lead to another imbalance. Anyway I'm sorry if I seem to be picking a fight with you johng . Its just so glaringly evident when you can't get anybody as western allies to take on the mighty german wehrmacht. Again this suggestion is for PBEM/Online players. [ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: Galka ]



Galka -> (11/26/2001 3:46:00 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Colonel von Blitz:
quote:
These are my words and meaning was that I'd like to change the cost system, not because I feel that the game is unblanced. Balance can be achieved in very different ways. I meant that on the other hand I'd like to see cost system that is built for every country so that it would reflect the actual composition of their army (common equipment is cheaper and rarer units would cost more, now units are more priced similarily for every country (more armour and heavier gun, more expensive). Well, call it something other than balancing the game, but I agree. I take it then you'd like to see more battles fought with M4, MkIV, T-34 types? quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Galka:
I dunno. I still think that If a Tiger Kill ratio against T-34s is 4:1, it should cost four times as much. That would save a lot of extra communications and potential misunderstanding between players.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not find this useful, as one of the posts show...
In my current PBEM game I have Soviet Heavy Tank Brigade: 42 x KV-1S, 1 x Mot Inf Btn (two companies), 1 x 82mm mortar bty, 1 x 37mm AA-Gun Bty. In addition, I have one AT rgmt, 16 x 76mm ATGs. I dunno if this kind of group ever existed, but main point is that it was composed of REALISTIC brigades and regiments. I had possibility to buy million ( ) batteries of 203mm howitzers and with that arty, one can blow away several Tiger-Battalions...though Soviets had a lot of arty, I didn't buy that amount of howitzers ok, you know that you bought KV1s' instead of KV85s or heavier. How do I know? If I come to battle with Tigers , you're dead. If I come with MkIVs and you've KV85s I'm dead! Do you tell the other guy what he's up against? Soviets without Artillery! I thought you said you were playing TO&E's Now about artillery and Tigers. You can throw all the artillery you want at me (it's most expensive), but you ain't gonna kill a Tiger Abeiltung with it. On the Steppe of Russia, on a typical day, no Sir.



john g -> (11/26/2001 5:03:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Galka:
This might seem like a silly question, but ..Do you think Tigers are too easy to kill? In my experience M10s are not superior at range to Tigers. At present your 1000 pts gets you 6 Tigers and 8 M10s. It's no challenge for the Tigers to Pick off the M10s loosing one or two units in the process. Have 8 M10s, or 9 M4A1s on 3 Tigers, have a better chance, and reflect the reality of the Allies defeating the Axis with quantity. [ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: Galka ]
But M10's are not designed to go 1on1 with tanks, they work best when attacking vehicles that are suppressed to the point that they can't shoot back at which time the m10 goes in and finishes it off. An M10 is not a MBT, it is a tank destroyer, it is like a sniper going up against a hmg, if you stand out in the open like an old wild west gunfight, the hmg will win, if the hmg is suppressed first then the sniper can pick them off. The arty doesn't have to destroy the Tigers, just leave them unable to shoot back, that is when you commit the M10. No allied tank is supposed to go 1on1 with German armor. They were designed for a different method of fighting. It takes a combined arms approach to kill them off. That is why the allies are loaded with infantry with bazookas, and the best selection of arty in the game.



Galka -> (11/26/2001 6:35:00 AM)

Well, I am sorry. I hope we can agree to disagree. I find Germany has an edge in the game that they did not have in history. Fact is, they were armour poor for most of the war. It was the quality that allowed them to continue. You've got to pay for quality. Period. [ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: Galka ]



AmmoSgt -> (11/26/2001 11:42:00 AM)

Different Armies had different strenghts and weaknesses .. and consequently used very different tactics and differently proportioned combinations of forces .. 650 points of Tigers does not stand a chance against 650 points of AT armed Infantry or Engineers from almost any army in the Game ..
It is all Tactics , and more than that, appropiate tactics, for the nation and the equipment you are using.
Trying to compare even a PZ IV to a Sherman, or a Sherman to a T-34 is almost impossible ( dispite similar Tonage, Armor and Gun) when you consider all the other factors that are either on a tank , or are necesary to support a tank ..like logistics( Ammo and Fuel) or the availabilty of lowboys to transport them to the front and the like .. that all add up to an AFV being combat effective ..
A sterling example of this is the King Tiger in the game .. available in June 44 .. yes, 5 King Tigers were in fact at Normandy , However they all broke down so far back from the front that the allies never knew it or actually saw one until late September... and though I do not consider Kelly's Heros a sound historical reference.. the point that was made in the movie about the ability of long barrel tanks to work in cities and forrests at short range is valid .. as is the unquestioned superiority of Shermans to get the first round on a target in a suprise engagement..
If you want to have Battles that reflect the numerical superiority of the Allies, then give the Allies twice the points they would normally get and make them buy artillery with the extra points .. heck, the Americans had more Battalions of Arty in the ETO, than they had Battalions of Tanks anyway , and most of it was 155mm and larger... If Historical battles are what you want, then you pretty much need to leave out tanks altogether in about half of all the battles you fight .. 3/4 of all the battles if you are axis ...
Lets face it .. when the Great Generals and Leaders of WW2 talk about weapons that won the war ..it is jeeps and C-47's and liberty ships that get mentioned most often .. every once and a while the bazooka or maybe an M-1 gets mentioned ..but that's rare ..
Terms like Blitzkrieg and Combined Arms Assault, Pak front and defense in depth, and Time on Target and Artillery Barrage, get tossed around and mixed together .. but they are all very different terms for very different tactics that require very different abilities and equipment usage ...
Trying to compare a Sherman to a Tiger is sorta like trying to compare a Chevy to a Porche .. it all depends on what you are trying to do .



pax27 -> (11/26/2001 6:42:00 PM)

I like AmmoSgt. AmmoSgt write good posts. AmmoSgt knows what went down and how it did.
Theres nothing to add... except that a Porsche is cooler everywhere but in the states



Charles2222 -> (11/26/2001 11:37:00 PM)

I've made this tired point for what seems to be the fifth time now, over the course of this forum, but new people come laong so they don't know. Point 1: The T34 IS NOT in the Tiger class!!! It is the KV line which is. If you fight Tigers with T34s instead of KVs you deserve to lose. Point 2: How has this 4-to-1 T34 ratio been attained? At one time, one of our posters placed a test of 20 Tigers vs. 20 T34/85s. The result, rounded down, was basically Tigers with a 3-to-1 ratio. This test (actually I think there were 5 tests for consistency) was done with a neeting engagement, by having both sides controlled by the computer. Point 3: Have those who consider Tigers 4-to-1 superior ever actually put up some sort of test to verify that theory in the slightest? Me, I took the above result, 3-to-1 Tigers, and made a test out out that. The rules of the test were the same, and after ONE test, that's all I needed to porve the point. What happened? I piited 60 T34/85s against 20 Tigers. The result was basically a 1.5-to-1 Tiger ratio. Point 4: As has been touched on earlier, what if we decide the Tiger should be 4X the price, and then pit PZIIIJs against the T34/85s (at least PZIIJs and T34/85s are in the same class, though the PZIIJ isn't the best German medium tank), and the T34/85 wins 4-to-1, does the T34/85 price go up again? And if it does, do you quadruple the Tiger price again? And what do you do when the PZIIIJ whoops the T70 10-to-1, jack it's price up also, which jacks up T34/85, which jacks up Tigers? For a start, if one will claim that one unit is worth so many times the other unit, then assign the unit that comes off on the worst end that ratio in another battle, and find out that suddenly the superior unit doesn't come off even as it should.



Galka -> (11/27/2001 1:08:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22:
I've made this tired point for what seems to be the fifth time now, over the course of this forum, but new people come laong so they don't know. Point 1: The T34 IS NOT in the Tiger class!!! It is the KV line which is. If you fight Tigers with T34s instead of KVs you deserve to lose.
So the Russians deserved to loose? They threw thousands of T-34s against anything the Germans had. Someone said that to defeat tanks it's all about tactics. True, Russian tactics were to simply overwhelm the germans. Point 2: How has this 4-to-1 T34 ratio been attained?
It hasn't. It's only been suggested in this forum.
10 Likeminded people haven't come forward so It'll probably die in this forum.
Point 3: Have those who consider Tigers 4-to-1 superior ever actually put up some sort of test to verify that theory in the slightest? Me, I took the above result, 3-to-1 Tigers, and made a test out out that. The rules of the test were the same, and after ONE test, that's all I needed to porve the point. What happened? I piited 60 T34/85s against 20 Tigers. The result was basically a 1.5-to-1 Tiger ratio.
OK, That Cost 9000pts for the T-34 and 3720 for the Tiger. At a 2.41 advantage in points the Tiger still scored a high ratio. Thks for your research
Point 4: As has been touched on earlier, what if we decide the Tiger should be 4X the price, and then pit PZIIIJs against the T34/85s (at least PZIIJs and T34/85s are in the same class, though the PZIIJ isn't the best German medium tank), and the T34/85 wins 4-to-1, does the T34/85 price go up again? And if it does, do you quadruple the Tiger price again? And what do you do when the PZIIIJ whoops the T70 10-to-1, jack it's price up also, which jacks up T34/85, which jacks up Tigers?
First up I'm not suggesting a 'knee jerk' reaction by upping the Tigers price 4x is the solution. However through increases of 10% and extensive playtesting a more suitable balance to our game (for PBEM players), might be attained. Co-incident with this, it's possible that players may choose to do battle with more common AFVs such as the T-34 and PZ MkIV as their price may not come under modification. Caveat. I'm not saying there is no place on the battlefield for German heavies, but I feel the incentive to pick one company of Panthers and one company of MKIVs is at the present time , low. Mr Vebber sent me something yesterday about V7.0.
A first impression is that some of the common tank prices in the Allied arsenal are being lowered 10-20%. Thanks, I think I'll like it. [ November 26, 2001: Message edited by: Galka ]



Galka -> (11/27/2001 1:24:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22:
At one time, one of our posters placed a test of 20 Tigers vs. 20 T34/85s. The result, rounded down, was basically Tigers with a 3-to-1 ratio. This test (actually I think there were 5 tests for consistency) was done with a neeting engagement, by having both sides controlled by the computer.
Citing tests that are executed by computer AI is both Bogus and Insulting. Fight me on the Steppe, and on a clear day you will see all your T-34s hiding or burning
[email]galka@shaw.ca[/email]



Larry Holt -> (11/27/2001 1:49:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Galka:
Citing tests that are executed by computer AI is both Bogus and Insulting. Fight me on the Steppe, and on a clear day you will see all your T-34s hiding or burning
[email]galka@shaw.ca[/email]

I disagree. The method of having the AIP fight both sides is valid, It is to remove any human variation in tactics and reduce it to a pure tank vs. tank systems evaluation, removing any tactics issues.



Frank W. -> (11/27/2001 2:34:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Holt:

I disagree. The method of having the AIP fight both sides is valid, It is to remove any human variation in tactics and reduce it to a pure tank vs. tank systems evaluation, removing any tactics issues.
you must run severall tests (10 or so...) and count them up,to come to a valid conclusion. there are high amounts of LUCK and BAD LUCK or say coincide (i mean "zufall" donīt know excatly the english word)... i find it easier to kill a tiger than a hidden inf. platton with w/ pz.faust 100 or m9 zooks.



Charles2222 -> (11/27/2001 3:23:00 AM)

Galka:
quote:

So the Russians deserved to loose? They threw thousands of T-34s against anything the Germans had.
No, I was talking about the game, anybody who tries to defeat Tigers with T34s deserves to lose. Why, and how does this not apply to the RL WWII? Because the Russians couldn't afford to make a very large amount of KVs, while the player can. In other words, while the historic Russian has meterials to consider, the player has nothing more than the small increase in prcie between KVs from T34s. Funny, I never see anyone make the case that KVs should be a lot more expensive because they'd whoop T34s between 2-to-1 to 3-to-1, because the comparison between those two and the T34/Tiger pricing are the same. People try to apply real world arguments to a game that isn't wholly RL and you'll get the wrong approach. The approach to remember about this game, and then things will start making a little bit of sense, is this: What if two country's forces of about the same size met each other, what would happen?.
quote:

OK, That Cost 9000pts for the T-34 and 3720 for the Tiger. At a 2.41 advantage in points the Tiger still scored a high ratio. Thks for your research
You're missing the point. We have one test that says it's 3-to-1 so the Tiger should be triple the price (allegedly), and yet another, when putting the 3-to-1 advantage onto the field which suggests Tiger pricing at only 1.5 the T34, so which figure do you go with? Nevermind the fact that this is invalid in the first place. Compare pricing only based on same class, such as KVs against Tigers, and THEN maybe one can make a case for adjusting prices accordingly. Comparing Tigers to T34s is as much a joke as comparing T34s to PZIIs, they're NOT MEANT to be equivalent. Think of the fallout of such reasoning, after all the battles which one would base pricing on has finished, you'll end up with Tigers costing 1000 and PZIIs/T70s costing 1 point; truly ridiculous.
quote:

First up I'm not suggesting a 'knee jerk' reaction by upping the Tigers price 4x is the solution. However through increases of 10% and extensive playtesting a more suitable balance to our game (for PBEM players), might be attained. Co-incident with this, it's possible that players may choose to do battle with more common AFVs such as the T-34 and PZ MkIV as their price may not come under modification.
Good, you seem to see the threat for what it is then, however, others have suggested that very thing you see around. Also, you're also seeing my point when you compare T34 to PZIV, because both are in the same class (medium tanks). The somewhat lopsided results from T34s to Tigers, however, is based on the simple notion that somehow the T34 should be it's equal because the Germans lost and it was the Russian mainstay. The Tiger, however formidable, and though in a different class, was not the German mainstay, in fact the Panther was probably a lot closer to that description, though the Panther is sort of a 'funny' in my book, because it's so versatile that it doesn't really fit into either the heavy or the medium classes very well (a tweener I'd say).
quote:

Citing tests that are executed by computer AI is both Bogus and Insulting. Fight me on the Steppe, and on a clear day you will see all your T-34s hiding or burning
First sentence, I agree totally, this is borne of the AOE pricing nonsense, and certainly shouldn't have a place in wargaming, but then that sort of thing was the reasoning for making Tiger pricing exorbitant (though it does create 'something' of a level playing field as Larry said). As I said before, it's always the German stuff that is being targeted. How come nobody ever complains that the KV85 is too cheap in relation to the Sherman? Or the KV85 to the T34/85? Or the Pershing in relation to the PZIV? As for the second sentence, don't make me laugh, assuming my prior paragraph in this post hadn't already given it away, I'm not the type who would use T34s against Tigers (rather KVs), firstly, and more importantly I'm more inclined to play Gerry.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.65625