Explain to me how H2H point costs are fair

[VikingNo2]

If there is a double penalty then I agree.

[Belisarius]

Originally posted by VikingNo2
If there is a double penalty then I agree.

If there's a double penalty..... to what

[Redleg]

The problem is how to determine that the cost of units/equipment is balanced. No one would ever find agreement on that. That's why things are as they are..... and why the OOBs were redone over and over again. If one thing is changed, it starts a domino effect that spreads clear through the game.

I think it is a desirable, but unachievable goal.

[Panzer Leo]

Originally posted by rbrunsman
Why can't this be accomplished? Does anyone seriously disagree with Goblin's excellent explaination of the current problem with H2H?

Now if Panzer Leo would only chime in here...

I'm here, watchin' and scratching my head how to get this one handled...

Goblin pretty much put together what the problem is. Here's some help to understand the whole thing and why it is so tough to get any sort of balance:

By the example of a Pz IVg, I will try to show the problem with the "true troop costs"

Exp is the experience of the unit, value is the value displayed when you look at the units menue in the deploy or during turns and cost is what you actually pay for it in purchase

Exp----value----cost

90------131------118
85------124------113
80------117------113
75------110------103
70------103------103
65------094------077
60------087------077
55------080------072


I think, that the value is actually what was planned to be the costs in purchase and something went wrong...it is obvious, that any setup of nations with one having Exp 70 and the other 65 favours the 65 by far...

Unfortunately due to the Exp level revision in H2H, this magical 65/70 line is crossed more often on the most used battle setup dates, like '44 Germans and Russians...

There's nothing I can do about it, as it is as I believe a coding error...

The ONLY way to have a real balanced battle is by turning "true troop" off and also turning the "historic ratings" off and setting the troop qualities of both nations to the same level...but that really takes a lot from the realistic feeling and fun of the game...

So we have to find a way how to live with the true troop costs error...

I admit, that the Germans might have a slight disadvantage in what they get for their pts sometimes, but I mainly see that on the infantry side, rather then on tanks...

I altered a German OOB and lowered infantry costs making them closer to allied ones...the wanted result should be simply said: if you have to pay less for your infantry, you have something left to buy another tank (or whatever)...this could even up things a bit...

I need a few testers now to run the one or other battle with these changes...send me a mail to joerg.loewenstein@gmx.de and I'll give you the OOB...and I would really be pissed if not a single one of these mails is signed by a Goblin

[Goblin]

On its way!

Don't hurt a sick Goblin!



Goblin- A Goblin is waiting for Jess to volunteer too;)

[tracer]

Originally posted by Redleg
The problem is how to determine that the cost of units/equipment is balanced. No one would ever find agreement on that. That's why things are as they are..... and why the OOBs were redone over and over again. If one thing is changed, it starts a domino effect that spreads clear through the game.

I think it is a desirable, but unachievable goal.

Right on target. Unless the entire package of OOBs is run thru the mill together there will be inequities...a similar debate has popped up here around the time of every version release.

What if the values were set back to what they were in v7.1?

[tracer]

Originally posted by rbrunsman
I still contend that the best way to determine who the best player is is to have both sides have equal points and have that mean that the equipment is balanced. That way the player who uses his equipment properly/better will win the game.

You could try a battle like I'm in right now:

Meeting engagement, 9/49, VIS 28, 240x100 map, 14100 points, rarity and true troop cost off, troop quality for both sides set to 70% and free use of the 'nations' button...buy whatever you want. Each side is allowed 1 platoon of infiltrators and 1 air section (cannot be used before turn 8).

While this 'kid in a candy store' battle is fun, like Leo pointed out it lacks the realistic flavor of a historic engagement.

Also, I got a copy of the new OOB from Leo; if anyone wants to run a small test battle let me know. jimnsb@cfl.rr.com

[Tomanbeg]

While I havn't played H2H, I would like to point out the the 'problems' it is supposed to fix are not inharent to WaW. Vebber posted a long thread back in the version 4.5 days explaining the unit point costs. They were designed to work under certain conditions to achieve 'balanced' battles. They work, under those conditions. It stands to reason that when you change those conditions, you change play balance. If you play the game as it was designed, everything works OK. When you start fooling with the settings, it goes to sh1t fast.
C&C is the most critical(IMHO), With C&C on, you don't need to worry about arty smacks. There is normally not enough command points available to call down 24 tubes or so. With C&C on germans can go to a defend status and fight off hordes of Soviets that are not in a defend status. Lots of other examples that I don't feel like getting into here. I see this as a group of people complaing that their screwdriver isn't doing such a good job of driving nails. I think my suggestion that they get a hammer will not be well received.
T.( who makes it any way. Instead of fooling with settings, learn the game. Learn tactics).

[rbrunsman]

So what you are saying Tomanbeg is that you are one of the C&C ON snobs who looks down his nose at those of us who don't like C&C? I can't argue with your reasoning other than that there are more of us who play with C&C Off than On.

There. How's that for not well received?:p

[Goblin]

I have to agree, T. There were plenty of balanced battles in 7.1, with C&C OFF. Our entire point is that the Germans should not have to be on defense every game, especially Meeting Engagements.

Goblin

[VikingNo2]

Snobs, Hammers and screwdrivers OH My ! LOL


We all need to hug I think:D


I have played a couple games in H2H now, Mr T I think you should try it I think you will like it. The CC ON I am going to give a honest try. ( I don't like losing but who does ) I would like to learn all the options of the game, I'm not too bad at tactics I feel. However it is an option, by the very name option its no better or worse ON or OFF


On the Bazooka thing don't get caught up in the ranges, anything over three or four Hexs will be a miss most of the time and now they actually run out of ammo ( in the past they could OP fire more time that they had rounds ) and the German ATs preform better than they did, I'm sure LEO will tweek it some but hopefully not too much. Just play H2H alittle more RB you will like it, trust me, I would lie to you, I may kill you but not lie LOL

[Panzer Leo]

Originally posted by Tomanbeg
While I havn't played H2H, I would like to point out the the 'problems' it is supposed to fix are not inharent to WaW. Vebber posted a long thread back in the version 4.5 days explaining the unit point costs. They were designed to work under certain conditions to achieve 'balanced' battles. They work, under those conditions. It stands to reason that when you change those conditions, you change play balance.

Absolutely...the problem is, that H2H in general has a bit different settings and what ever the balance for 4.5 or 7.1 (changed a lot from there) was, it is not the best for H2H...I think we're pretty close and consider everything done now just as fine tuning, not more...
Probably the most significant thing one could learn from this debate is the 65/70 EXP jump when using true troop...knowing a danger means being able to defeat it...it is true, that this odd calculation has more effect on H2H then on 7.1, but it still remains the same for both: on specific setups one side gets a clear disadvantage...

One interesting note: this jump can be used in purchase with the +/- 10 bonus for elite and inferior troops, making it work for you...

That means in '44 GER vs RUS (Exp 70/65) the German player can get the low costs for -10 units (in late '44 the VolksGrenadiere) and get's really a lot of troops being not much inferior to the RUS and on the other side the RUS pays a whole lot more for his Guard units then for his regulars, more then they are worth...

So the only way to find criteria for a balanced cost system is anyways under the conditions TRACER took for his battle setups...everything else comes under too many influences one hardly can control...

[rbrunsman]

Panzer Leo: I would just like a table showing what tweaks to make to make a even point meeting engagement an even battle. That would make me happy.

VikingNo2: I like the idea of the bazookas running out of ammo sooner (of courses) but I don't like the fact that one bazooka team can take 6 shots at 500 yards and have no chance to kill my Tiger, but be able to suppress it so much that the Tiger won't op fire any more. Perhaps severely reducing the rate of fire of the bazooka would be good to do also.

Also, I'm much more comfortable with H2H already with our second battle, but I sure won't fight the US as Germany without a point bonus, that's for sure. And, Your Brits are in for it in this battle!

[Goblin]

I agree. The suppression value alone makes it too much. Not to mention, there will be those times when the odd shot does hit and kill at 10 hexes. We already see players that buy 15 bazooka platoons to 'suppliment' their forces, and load them on armor. Then you not only face a tank at 500 meters, you face three bazooka teams at 500 meters first, because they were riding 3 to a tank. Or they turn a Greyhound into a mobile ATG by putting two per Greyhound on an entire company of Greyhounds. I think the extended range only encourages this.

Goblin

[VikingNo2]

Why not, have you never used AA with quad .50 cal to wipe out infantry squads, or machgun fire to suppress an area, its the same theory, the HE rounds were ment to bunker bust and suppress(like direct fire arty ). I do agree with Goblin a company of Bazookas riding on a company of greyhounds is just wrong IMHO. A range of 5 or 6 and a rate of fire of 3 or 4 would be good I think. I don't know if it is possible but can you change the range to match status( Infantry at weapons ), meening that if the unit is dugin and set to defence its range is ten( Bazooka ), and when move or unloading from a vehical it be reduced in half. Is that possible I think that would please most everybody. That would half to be applied to all infantry man portable AT weapons, or even better when a unit uloads from a vehical it can't shoot for a round, simalar to AT GUNs

Goblin, RB, Leo, M4, Gary what do you think.

[Goblin]

By suppression, I meant that people will use the relatively cheap teams to unload on an enemy tank, hoping to score a hit, but knowing that even if they do not, the enemy tank will be so suppressed that they can kill it with any tank afterwards. It's done with infantry already right now, and the more effective bazooka suppression combined with a range of 10 is just too much.

Incidently, I renew my complaint about tanks being too suppressed from light infantry fire.

Goblin:)

[mogami]

Hi, I have never played H2H, so I might be premature in suggesting that part of the unbalance may in fact be due to playing with C&C off. Command and control really effects lower experiance units more. If every platoon leader has 1 or 2 fewer orders per turn over the course of a 15-20 turn game it has a major impact. By not using C&C you automaticly make the lower experiance (cheaper) unit preform the same as the higher cost units. They move and recover beyond what they would normally do. The National setting were designed with C&C in mind.
Deployment takes longer with C&C on but then the turns are the same as with it off. It is almost impossible to do "tricks" since units have to stay together. (so you can't place AT infantry units on armour and then scatter them all over the place.)
Countries that don't have radios have to maintain unit integrity and plan their movements. As a test some of you should try a few small battles with C&C on and see if it has any effect.

[tracer]

One thing that would help reduce the amount of suppression a tank takes from light infantry fire would be if they fired back! I've noticed lately that tanks with little or no suppression rarely op-fire at harrassing infantry that they can see. Was this done to help prevent them from using up their available shots?

[mogami]

Hi, I thought one of the 7.1 changes was to add op fire chances to all units. Before op fire subtracted from shot for the next turn but 7.1 made op fire separted from the shots you got at the beginning of the turn

[Tomanbeg]

Originally posted by rbrunsman
So what you are saying Tomanbeg is that you are one of the C&C ON snobs who looks down his nose at those of us who don't like C&C? I can't argue with your reasoning other than that there are more of us who play with C&C Off than On.

There. How's that for not well received?:p

Not bad. I spend most of my time up at AoW and by those standards(? Combining that word and the AoW forum might just be an Oxymoron) that was a kiss. So, staying in that zone, I'm not sure that a 'snout count' is an arguement. It is a fact, which is a big part of the reason why you can go to the challenge forum and read challenge after challenge by people that have some pet peeve of one sort or another. I havn't seen a restriction that an opponent has to play with is little sisters bra on and one foot on top of the CPU, but it's headed that way. WW2 is the first war where mechanized units played a major role. Combined arms was the key to winning. Sp:WaW does an excellent job of illustrating that. For those that want to reduce the game to a pair of steel beheamoths sitting on a hill, lobbing smaller chunks of steel at each other, I can suggest several good Tank simulators. Games where you don't have to worry about those nasty gunners and their big shells, or pesky sojers with bottles of flammable liquid sneaking up on you. To offer an analogy, this arguement is about what kind of earrings to paint on the Mona Lisa. I am saying she looks fine, and to leave it alone.
T.(BTW, have you tried C&C on? Has anyone shown you how to play with it on? I've never had someone learn to play with C&C on that didn't end up liking it).