Galka
Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000 From: Alberta, Canada Status: offline
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Charles_22:
Charles_22 Except for some of your points I'd have to dismiss this response as that between a fantasy gamer and a historic gamer. Each person see's the game from a different seemingly opposite perspective.
I felt the need to start a new thread on the fantasy issue.
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.
Ok I'll assume (perhaps to my detriment) that we are discussing a historical simulation game.
I don't think I missed the point at all. If you take 2.41 worth of points in T-34s put them up against 1.0 worth of points Tiger, and the Tiger still gets 1.5 to 1.0 Kills, I'd say a battalion of Tigers is near invincible.
There are folks that claim games with 1000 bazookas negate this advantage. Many of these folks don't play PBEM, at least not for long.
WW2 was not fought exclusively by KVs Vs Tigers, T-34s Vs MkIV et cetera. and MkV, well thats an exception
T-34/76s should in this game be able to engage Tigers. To compensate for several deficiencies, namely Armour, Main Gun, and Fire Control, and Range I suggest that the Tiger is one of the vehicles that should have it's artificial(WAW) cost raised to reflect a possibility for an opponent with this lower quality model to get close enough to potentially overrun, rout, and/or kill a battalion of them, while suffering heavy losses.
[ November 26, 2001: Message edited by: Galka ]
_____________________________
"In light of my experience, I consider that your conclusion that the attacker needs a three to one superiority is under the mark, rather than over it. I would say that, for success, the attacker needs six to one or seven to one against a well-knit defence
|