 |
|
Original OOB or McNamara OOB - Which is best? - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: Original OOB or McNamara OOB - Which is best? (/showthread.php?tid=37273) Pages:
1
2
|
Original OOB or McNamara OOB - Which is best? - Peter777 - 10-10-2006 Hi Guys Which OOB are most people using, original or McNamara? Which is considered the best one to use (the Original OOB / Database or the McNamara OOB / Database as used in the newest Volcano ALT scenarios)? I ask this as I have noticed that in MG44 in particular British Infantry and the 1st AB seem to get the biggest down grade vs others, hence they are weaker. This is especially so for UK Inf/AB whose soft attack values that drop from 10 to 7, the US Para's also drop from a soft attack of 10 to 8, whilst most german units only drop 1 soft attack level. So I was particularly concerned if this may effect game balance. So what do others think? And why do we have 2 OOB any way? PS - I like most of Volcano's scenarios I am just not sure about this OOB change. Peter777 RE: Original OOB or McNamara OOB - Which is best? - Glenn Saunders - 10-10-2006 Peter777 Wrote:Original OOB or McNamara OOB - Which is best? Define BEST in terms of the 16 PzC titles and I think you might get a better assessment. But defining in terms of one or two games as case studies would be a difficult enough task. I'd say the OOB differences are like the ALT Fire rules. Some suit some games better than others and some suit some people and not others. However the Vic levels are generally set with one set of conditions and when those conditions change, well, "you mileage may vary" Glenn RE: Original OOB or McNamara OOB - Which is best? - Peter777 - 10-10-2006 Hi Glen As a starter I am looking for the best historical result and feel in N44, MG44 and B44. Traditionally I have found this means using the ALT scenarios but now with MG44 using the McNamara OOB I am not sure. And with out play testing each game before playing it via PBEM I was interested in what other players thought was in general the best (ie most historically accurate result and feel) OOB the original or the McNamara. Cheers Peter777 RE: Original OOB or McNamara OOB - Which is best? - Huib Versloot - 10-10-2006 Volcano Man made the changes with the reference of history in mind. The original makers no doubt also had history in mind, but decided to stay within the limits of the default values. Volcano Man made the changes when the original produced results that he (and a lot of others including me) felt could be improved. I am a lot in favor of the new values as I believe the reasoning behind it is very sound. Soft attack values should not be "balance determinators"; victory levels and objectives are. The changes that are made are no doubt made to reflect the historical situation, hence it might be necessary to change victory levels as well, but I believe Volcano Man has taken all these things into account when he created the Alt scns. I would not compare the new values with the old ones, but just make a comparison with history and then see for yourself what is best. MG was a massive Allied failure in history.... only the 82nd AB had limited successes despite heavy losses. RE: Original OOB or McNamara OOB - Which is best? - Volcano Man - 10-11-2006 Peter, Don't get too wrapped up in how much they (British and American AB that you were specifically referring to) have decreased because you are not looking at the entire picture. The German infantry values have decreased just as much and you are not even taking into consideration defense values and assault values. So yes, when you look at one value and compare it to the stock OOB you may not like what you see but you have to take it as a whole. There is a qualitative advantage and they have other, historical strengths that you must play to. But as Glenn said, it is all a matter of personal preference. I know some that play stock games with the default rules and that is it for them, and that is fine of course, but some also tell me that the ALT scenario's OOB changes (in their opinion) makes for more historical results and more tactical freedom. So it is all a matter of what you like. RE: Original OOB or McNamara OOB - Which is best? - Volcano Man - 10-11-2006 That said, I am also interested to hear everyone's opinion about the OOB changes. :) RE:��Original OOB or McNamara OOB - Which is best? - Dave68124 - 10-11-2006 Volcano Man Wrote:That said, I am also interested to hear everyone's opinion about the OOB changes. :) Still working through the first game, so opinion is limited right now. Any single observation would be the lack of effect that arty has on armor. I understood the rationale for reducing the hard attack numbers, but arty can be very effective on armor and I believe you may have swung too far too the other side rather than find a value and result in the middle. Again, just my opinion and limited in play time and scope at that, so take it what its worth. On another point, I see you have notes in each of the download, but do you have any kind of master reference table you could put separately on Glenn's site. It would be handy to have it as a reference to see what has changed or kind of an old v. new table by type. You get used to not having to think about the effect of an infantry assault will have, but now, it is much different and you tend to forget that the assault values have dropped for certain types of infantry. Thanks, RE:��Original OOB or McNamara OOB - Which is best? - Dave68124 - 10-11-2006 Volcano Man Wrote:That said, I am also interested to hear everyone's opinion about the OOB changes. :) Still working through the first game, so opinion is limited right now. Any single observation would be the lack of effect that arty has on armor. I understood the rationale for reducing the hard attack numbers, but arty can be very effective on armor and I believe you may have swung too far too the other side rather than find a value and result in the middle. Again, just my opinion and limited in play time and scope at that, so take it what its worth. On another point, I see you have notes in each of the download, but do you have any kind of master reference table you could put separately on Glenn's site. It would be handy to have it as a reference to see what has changed or kind of an old v. new table by type. You get used to not having to think about the effect of an infantry assault will have, but now, it is much different and you tend to forget that the assault values have dropped for certain types of infantry. Thanks, RE:��Original OOB or McNamara OOB - Which is best? - Dave68124 - 10-11-2006 Volcano Man Wrote:That said, I am also interested to hear everyone's opinion about the OOB changes. :) Still working through the first game, so opinion is limited right now. Any single observation would be the lack of effect that arty has on armor. I understood the rationale for reducing the hard attack numbers, but arty can be very effective on armor and I believe you may have swung too far too the other side rather than find a value and result in the middle. Again, just my opinion and limited in play time and scope at that, so take it what its worth. On another point, I see you have notes in each of the download, but do you have any kind of master reference table you could put separately on Glenn's site. It would be handy to have it as a reference to see what has changed or kind of an old v. new table by type. You get used to not having to think about the effect of an infantry assault will have, but now, it is much different and you tend to forget that the assault values have dropped for certain types of infantry. Thanks, RE: Original OOB or McNamara OOB - Which is best? - Dave68124 - 10-11-2006 Sorry for the multiple posts - damn slow website comes up with cannot find page, but it actually lands the post. |
){kind=link}