Explain to me how H2H point costs are fair

[Tomanbeg]

Originally posted by rbrunsman
Boy! I miss this thread for a day and it gets too big to even respond to everything mentioned. I'll just second what Golbin says (except I'll still read this thread). And, I agree with most of what V2 says (grudgingly since I owe him a payback:mad: ).

I also respectfully request that people stop saying, "Play with C&C ON." Most of us don't want to, so that argument doesn't help. We understand that C&C ON makes for a more realistic battle, but after all SPWAW is a game and I want the freedom of movement allowed with C&C Off. I like the "game" part of the experience. I just want to easily know what an even battle is. The system doesn't even have to be changed at all if someone would be so kind as to say, "For US v GE do this..." "For GE v Russia do this..." etc. The way H2H is now, x pts vs x pts does not equal an even battle.

And, Bazookas are still too powerful in H2H (couldn't help myeself).

If you want an even battle, play with C&C on. That is all I am trying to say. I'm not trying to insulte anyone (I do that on the AoW forum only, where it is expected and appreciated). I am just pointing out a fact. Just as you did when you pointed out that more people play with it off thenwith it on. C&C on is the answer. You may not like that answer, but that doesn't make it a wrong answer. And I am not trying to be snobbish. If you feel that I am, ok. You are in charge of your feelings and I wouldn't change them even if I could. I would consider that an invasion of your privacy. I have ran enough tests to determine that the AI is not rigged (IE: it doesn't cheat), to my satisfaction. If you keep fooling around, you might get lucky and find a way. Meanwhile I will be using the method built into the game. And C&C done properly really doesn't curtail your movent if you plan ahead.
Sort of like what an 'actual' does.
T.

[mogami]

Hi, Boy the times really do change. There was a time when to suggest SPWaW was a game and not a simulation would have produced a 10 page thread in around 2 hours.

[rbrunsman]

IT"S A GAME. IT'S A GAME. IT'S A GAME.

I love SPWAW and my fragile sensitivities are happy that you guys haven't just called me an idiot and been done with me. I propose we agree to disagree.

But please look at my original post and explain how 124 pts of german infantry can compete with 124 points of US Infantry whether C&C is on or not.

I said:
"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!!!"

Can the Germans really win against that because their C&C so so much better?

[mogami]

Hi, Why don't you test it? find someone and play a 500 point battle. The results might be interesting

[tracer]

Why does the word schism keep popping into my mind when I read these C&C threads? :rolleyes:

[tracer]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Boy the times really do change. There was a time when to suggest SPWaW was a game and not a simulation would have produced a 10 page thread in around 2 hours.

LOL!! Kinda reminds me of the book '1984': "we're at war with Eurasia and have always been at war with Eurasia".

[Tomanbeg]

Originally posted by rbrunsman
IT"S A GAME. IT'S A GAME. IT'S A GAME.

I love SPWAW and my fragile sensitivities are happy that you guys haven't just called me an idiot and been done with me. I propose we agree to disagree.

But please look at my original post and explain how 124 pts of german infantry can compete with 124 points of US Infantry whether C&C is on or not.

I said:
"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!!!"

Can the Germans really win against that because their C&C so so much better?

Maybe not, but 1200 points of German Infantry in '43 will eat 1200 points of US infantry for lunch. When your US infantry is stuck and can't move or dig in because they are out of points, the germans will still be going strong. The big difference is in the company commanders. They normally carry enough points to help a platoon leader get his platoon moving, and still be able to call in arty requests. With an American Platoon, it is critical that the plotoon stay within that 5 hex contact range, because the platoon leader normally doesn't carry enough points to both move over to a 'out of contact' squad and still give his platoon orders. So you have a 250 meter frontage for an american platoon. OTOH the kraut Platoon leader can give his platoon orders and then spend another cp to move to the 'out of contact' unit and repeat the orders. I can cover 300 to 400 meters with a german platoon, most of the time. So you can cover 15 hexes with your company of 3 platoons. I can cover the same area with 2 platoons and attack with the third. When you throw in combined arms, it gets worse. German Panzer commanders normally have enough cp's to put their tanks in a defend status between bounds. As you know this will give the hull down bonus in certain terrain. The .1 arty time for the US doesn't mean as much when you don't have the cp's to request it.
T.

[rbrunsman]

I thought the Germans had terrible communications capability compared to the Americans (a radio in every hand). Is C&C not modeling that?

Also, it seems to me, that as the American commander, as long as I keep my platoons together, I would crush the Germans given an equal number of points. It is still 82 US men against 45 Germans. I wouldn't want those odds against an equally skilled foe.

[Panzer Leo]

Originally posted by rbrunsman
IT"S A GAME. IT'S A GAME. IT'S A GAME.

I love SPWAW and my fragile sensitivities are happy that you guys haven't just called me an idiot and been done with me. I propose we agree to disagree.

But please look at my original post and explain how 124 pts of german infantry can compete with 124 points of US Infantry whether C&C is on or not.

I said:
"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!!!"

Can the Germans really win against that because their C&C so so much better?

Maybe I didn't make it clear, but that German infantry will be reduced in costs in the patch is already carved in stone...I'm tweaking and testing on how much, but that's just fine tuning...responses from testers have been good sofar and I think you will be able to live with that result
You found a valid point and by now I think the infantry cost problem can solve most of the balancing problems (except for the 65/70 jump ofcourse...)

BTW, if I recall right, someone was asking what to do with the purchase and this jump...

the jump is noticed the most, if one side has 70 or 75 and the other 60 or 65 as base...
I would suggest 20% more pts in case of 70 to 65 for the 70 nation and 10% in case of 75 to 65 or 70 to 60...needs further testing, but that should meet it statistically in value pts.

[Charles2222]

Mogami:

There was a time when to suggest SPWaW was a game and not a simulation would have produced a 10 page thread in around 2 hours.

I'm one of those that thinks it's a simulation. I would also like to call to mind that the original SP was never about H2H unless you're talking hotseat.

I really tire of hearing all those more inclined to the AOE perspective trying to make a game out of a simulation, but OTOH what goes around comes around. It doesn't take too much vision to see the other side of the fence. I'm sure the gamers are just as tired of the invasions brought against AOE by those history/simulation nuts as the other way around with SP renditions. As far as I'm concerned, as good as the internet can be for communication, it is to blame for all these games that started out being one thing and end up being some wishy-washy mishmash. And I'm not going to leave the multi-player experience versus the single player experience out of it either, because we constantly see games that are designed for single player that end up getting "balanced" because so many people think there's something wrong with someone designing single player only and not evolving it into some balanced mishmash for those H2H types.

I like your comment about picking the same nation for those wanting balance because it's the only sensible method of achieving it. I applaud those who made a single player game and kept it that way despite people who complain about AI, etc., trying to make it's something it's not. I also applaud those who made a multi-player type game and kept it that way. The writing is on the wall and you can't make a game that is both single player and multi-player/H2H superlative. One or the other is just going to suffer badly, simple as that.

[rbrunsman]

Originally posted by Panzer Leo
You found a valid point and by now I think the infantry cost problem can solve most of the balancing problems (except for the 65/70 jump ofcourse...)

BTW, if I recall right, someone was asking what to do with the purchase and this jump...

the jump is noticed the most, if one side has 70 or 75 and the other 60 or 65 as base...
I would suggest 20% more pts in case of 70 to 65 for the 70 nation and 10% in case of 75 to 65 or 70 to 60...needs further testing, but that should meet it statistically in value pts.

This may be a basic question, but where do I look to see/modify the experience ratings while setting up a battle? As far as I can tell, the base experience rating is random. I'm playing an H2H right now where I bought 2 Forward Observers and one of them has an 80 experience rating which makes him as good as the US at calling arty quickly. The other observer is just average at ~72 experience. That one FO could turn the battle all by himself since he can call arty so quickly and it was random as far as I can tell.

It seems to me it would be better just to avoid having armies on either side of the 70 experience point threshhold fighting each other unless you specifically wanted that situation. So I would like to be able to ensure it.

Thanks for the tip on how to balance forces.

As a gamer, I just don't see the fun in a US v US or GE v GE battle all the time. Sometimes but not always. Variety is the spice of life.

[Orzel Bialy]

I read this thread when it first started...and stayed away because I had a gut feeling it would spiral out of control.

So...being the guy I am...I'm going to chime in and leave it alone.

1st...
Panzer Leo...I like a lot of things you did with your Mod but like everything in the world it's not perfect. (and I know you don't claim it to be)
However, you errorred badly by saying that a player "sucked" if they allowed a bazooka team to get within 500 yards of a tank. With high grass, rough ground, trees, smoke and what not being as much a part of the game as the ON/OFF features...that was lame statement to make. Sorry.
I don't mean to re-hash the whole bazooka range affair...but needless to say...there aren't many references or footage of soldiers firing M9's at something 500 yards away....especially when the "effective" range was just around 100-125 yards if not closer! Just because something "could" hit something at that range...shouldn't mean that's it's accepted range. Anyway...

2nd...
CnC. Ok then, here's the jist of it. Not everyone likes CnC ON. It doesn't make anyone superior for using it or inferior for not using it...anyone spouting that crap needs to check their tongues at the door.
Do I use it when I play SPWAW and want a historical campaign or battle? YES.
Do I use it in Pbem's where I want to get my bang for the buck? NO.

3rd
All the other ON/OFF issues and settings. The one reason I stayed away from this post was the crap I saw being spouted from time to time on settings.
There were people claiming that others should learn how to play the game "correctly"...yet they themselves were "cooking the books" while they ran off at the mouth.
How / What? You may ask? Well, to talk up a storm about the reality factor of something like CnC and then do something like switch True/Rarity OFF is a real joke in my book!
Let's face it...there are a lot of players out there that use the "cheap cheat" just like Gob and Rbrunsman eluded to. They buy a ton of cheap, yet effective units (bazooka/PF/PS teams) and put them in 30 jeeps/Kw's or 50 HT's and then send them on their way to cause havoc.
Some say "novel approach"....but it's hardly that when you also talk about the reality of the battlefield out of the other corner of your mouth.
If you switch off True/Rarity...then anyone who rags on others about CnC have no ground to speak. To me it's the biggest cheat in the game...but that's just me....right up there with picking and setting your own experience factors instead of fighting with what the AI gives you.

I don't mean to blanket cover everyone with these statements...but those of you that speak out and yet do some of these things need to get a grip and step back a bit before you say others aren't playing the game as it was meant.

Ok...there's my two cents...

[M4Jess]

I wont mention names but the people who name call and try to push their ideas of the best way to play should really look in a mirror and tell themselfs that this is only a game. The best crowd to suite your play "style" are here. If you C&C crowd only wants to play with C&C on thats great. But leave the others alone. I dont really like C&C but who cares? So dont play me. I enjoy the fooling around and the teasing at the AAR forum and I KNOW there are alot of real players there and I also know there are/have been cheaters there. So why not just back the F off...live/play and let live/play....and by the way...grow up.

Panzer Leo! I love your Mod and think it great just the way it is and if some people want to nick-pick it..well....thats not the players you made it for anyways,,,,:D

Remember that all players have a love of history on this subject..and many of us are wrong somtimes...gezzz guys

Grow up...

Oh..by the way...the M4 was the Might of tanks in WW2:p

Jess

[Tomanbeg]

Originally posted by rbrunsman
I thought the Germans had terrible communications capability compared to the Americans (a radio in every hand). Is C&C not modeling that?

Also, it seems to me, that as the American commander, as long as I keep my platoons together, I would crush the Germans given an equal number of points. It is still 82 US men against 45 Germans. I wouldn't want those odds against an equally skilled foe.

No, C&C is more then just a radio check. It is also a very generic measure of an officers ability to lead, his training and resourcefulness. And the Americans were not really the equal on that level until after the Ruhr pocket was closed. That was the first time the US-UK forces actually captured a significant number of german officers. And then the only reason the Ami's started to match the germans on a Platoon Leader/Company commander level was they adopted the same system the germans used. Not thru choice but out of desperation. The US Army had a serious shortage of riflemen by November of '44. Poor planning, they had plenty of manpower, it was just not on the front lines with a rifle. It was bad enough that Black troopers were allowed to serve in front line units. The officer shortage(Plt and Co. commanders, there were lots of majors and cols.), was even worse. Marshell sent a specialist out from washington and he solved the problem by having Sgts. that were acting as Platoon leaders promoted to Lt. and staying with their platoons. before if they accepted the promotion, they had to leave their platoon, which they didn't want to do. On the other side of the hill, the german system took in future officers as 'officer canidates', were they started as a corporal and fast track their way to squad leader and platoon Sgt. before going to Military school. The best military Leaders are those that com up through the ranks. So there is more involved then who has a radio.
T.

[mogami]

Hi, I don't want people to think I am a C&C on fanatic.
A problem with the game was expressed and I am only trying to pin down exactly where it exists.
The adding of points to one side might in fact be the answer if the players are using C&C off and one of the players is paying extra for his units based on their superior C&C on characteristics.

Lets first use an example of C&C on. German tank platoon. 4 Tanks. Leader is able to give orders to entire platoon to move and fire. German unit cost more because of this ability. Russian Tank platoon 4 tanks. Leader is only able to move and fire half the platoon because of C&C being on. Russian unit cost less because of this (Russians need 2 platoons to move and fire 4 tanks)
Now turn C&C off. German still pays more but now cheaper Russian units get "free" equal ability. It is this difference that needs to be reimbursed to German player when deciding point cost. (since perhaps this is where point difference first arises)

[rbrunsman]

Thanks for the explanation Tomanbeg. So the Germans were better because the men loved their squad leaders and would do what they were told because the squad leader was "one of them." Whereas, the US "imposed" leaders on the men who hadn't earned the respect needed to get the men to agree to run off to certain death "taking that MG bunker." Is that it in a nutshell (at least in the early part of the US involvement in the war)? I wish the US had more (any) movies that portrayed the German soldiers better/realistically. The problem with SPR and BoB was that they made the Germans look like a bunch of chickens running around without guidance (but that's another thread topic).

If I didn't play this game, then I wouldn't get to learn all the fascinating things I do by reading/posting on the Forum. I understand that C&C was a critical factor in what made a country successful or not, but that doesn't mean I should have to play it, because, quite frankly, I like being able to run my troops all over hell and back without losing control of them. I get enough of a sense of the C&C function by not having the x0 unit near enough to help rally my wayward units. Would you C&C On players begrudge me the education I am getting by playing with C&C off? Any learning is good. I am not after a PhD in military history here, just a basic understanding.

And, you go! Orzel & M4! Tell 'em!

I think this discussion has been of great help even though a few people got their feathers ruffled.

[john g]

Originally posted by rbrunsman
Thanks for the explanation Tomanbeg. So the Germans were better because the men loved their squad leaders and would do what they were told because the squad leader was "one of them." Whereas, the US "imposed" leaders on the men who hadn't earned the respect needed to get the men to agree to run off to certain death "taking that MG bunker." Is that it in a nutshell (at least in the early part of the US involvement in the war)? I wish the US had more (any) movies that portrayed the German soldiers better/realistically. The problem with SPR and BoB was that they made the Germans look like a bunch of chickens running around without guidance (but that's another thread topic).

If the movie Patton had shown the events at Kasserine you might have seen US troops running around like chickens.

Remember SPR delt with rangers and airborne, BoB delt with airborne, not exactly your normal infantry trooper.

A large differance comes into play when comparing the early war divisions with the late war divisions. The combat record of a division like 1st infantry is totally different from something like 95th. Not to mention what the repple-depple mess did to units when it sent untrained troops forward into units involved in combat instead of integrating them when a unit was out of the line.
thanks, John.

[rbrunsman]

Originally posted by john g
Remember SPR delt with rangers and airborne, BoB delt with airborne, not exactly your normal infantry trooper.

Thanks, but my point was that the US AB units were facing the "feared" Falschirmjaeger troops in many instances and you are lead to believe the the FJs weren't so tough. A movie from the German side would be unformative for those of us interested in historical accuracy. Your average American probably has a perspective that they simply cannot believe that those stupid Germans (as portrayed in American movies) took over Europe.

What's a "repple-depple mess?"

[Panzer Leo]

Uhhh...easy guys...don't take all too serious here...and thanks for chiming in, but don't leave us alone Orzel, you're welcome

Seems my attempt to kick up some dust failed and I scared away the one or other...sorry, was not my intention

To make things cool down a bit, here's where I am at the moment:

Bazookas:

-weapons in squads range 4
-weapons as individual AT-teams range 7

reason: I cannot reduce the too high hit chances of Bazookas in squads, so limiting the range is the only way to make them behave realistic...extracting them from the squads wouldn't meet US tactics and the tons of little Bazooka teams running around in Airborne formations is just not practical...
The PIAT will be treated the same, except for range 3 (6)
Range 4 for a Bazooka means a max effective range of 150m - the last hex always gets enormeous penalties, so trying to hit tanks at 4 hexes will be very difficult...range 7 in Inf-AT teams to keep at least a bit potential to attack buildings at greater ranges (keep in mind, that the hit chances of the teams are anyways lower then in the squads, so they shouldn't hit tanks reliably over 3 hexes)...
PzSchreck will be altered accordingly, ofcourse...

Costs:

- German infantry will undergo a reduction leaving standard infantry from around 20-28 pts per squad, depending on equipement
- tanks will not be redone, except for a Russian hvy correction on JS tanks - these will be priced a bit higher

reason: after several tests it showed up, that primarely not the costs of the tanks are the main driving factor behind unbalanced games, but the 65/70 gap, that shows up more frequent in H2H because of the raised EXP base levels...

this is where the latest testing went...

BTW, rbrunsman, the experience base level is the number you see in the purchase screen under experience in the lower left corner...this level is taken when you buy a unit and by rolling a few dice the actual exp of a unit is determined...this is why you have verying exp around a base level (base 70 means you have a few units with 64 and so and some with 76...all scattered around the 70 by random)

[VikingNo2]

On command and control, not the game, real I agree with T as far as command and control the Germans were the best, Now I believe the Marines are one of the best ( I'm partial ofcource ) it comes down to whom can give orders, the lower the level you can give orders the more responsive and adaptable units you will get.


The Rusians old doctrine, command and control was their weakness( mine is spelling ), forget shooting at the tank with the big gun shoot at the Tank with the antennas it will make the onther tanks have to make decision they are not use to making, of couse the flip side of that, there was 1000 tanks. When doing training with forigen military's one question always serfaces, how do the enlisted have so much power (responsibility) and pull it off.

I still think its a better game CC Off, but I'm going learn CC On

Those changes seem very good will they be posted on your web site ?