The Ideal QB Force Mix

[Soldier]

No I don't have the answer to that question myself.. :-(
But those of you that do, please feel free to feed the rest of us some tid bits on the subject... :-)

[Copper]

I dont think there can ever be a perfect force mix because of all the variables involved.... these include.... date (time frame) day or night, map parameters etc etc. Then you would need to factor in your opponents style of play and what equipment he will pick.

In hindsight -especially in QB's all you can do is give yourself a varied OOB so as to be able to cover a number of eventualities.

Be interesting to hear others POV??

Bootie

[Lord Bane]

[Soldier]

Thanks Bane! I really hunger for that scenario. Haven't played it from the Russian side yet.. :-)
Looking forward to it..

[jawsconan]

Hi,

I agree with Lord Bane. Unrestricted forces could create incongruous situation. The case he's describing is one of them. Plenty armour VS a few some or infantry only VS armoured army. All of that is not interesting for the game.
The best way with QB is to play with interarmy parameter on. It is a way to share the forces out on a balanced configuration.

But to respond to your question, the mix depends a lot from the setup parameters. As i am concerned, i don't spend my equipment's points in the same proportion per type of equipment on a desert battle or a woody battle for exemple.
Your gaming experience of terrain makes the difference ;)

Cheers.
hubert

[Ratzki]

I think that most of the problems come from too little time being spent on the parameters of the game. Coming from a tabletop gaming background, we would spend a considerable amount of time to flesh out not only an evenly matched game, but one that was interesting as well, both with units being used and the map. The QB point system does not equate to an evenly matched game, there are huge imbalances, just look at the German/Russian infantry as the war progresses, other then organisation, the Russian equipment stays pretty much the same whereas the German personal AT weapons gain in both number and quality. There are other areas as well, so a Mech force mix vs. a Mech force mix does not produce an even game. As well, the equipment available is too broad for both sides, and the numbers of vehicles usually grows outa proportion. And then we have a computer generated map that never seems to feel quite right at best and is down right horrible at worst.
As for the best QB purchase, I agree, unrestricted is not the way to go. Flesh it out beforehand, if you want to play a large armor engagement, tell the other guy and put some restrictions on both sides so manuver is the game if that is what you want, build a map that suits the game you want, let the other guy be equal partners in creating a good slugfest, with lots of nailbiting situations. You will still get lots of mystery as to what the other guy purchased and a good fought game as a bonus.

[bluehand]

I prefer a battlion of reg inf of some sort, a company of good troops ie Sturm, PzGr, SMG, Eng, Vetern preferably, and then a plt or two of tanks. I prefer my side to be a reasonable mix of what a commander might get for the job of capturing the next intersection.

I don't care what my opponent chooses because in war is unpredictable especially if its a ME. I do like the idea of giving your opponent a heads up for an Attack, or Assault because those are supposedly thought out. so hopefully the general told you to expect the tank division coming your way.

I really don't like unrealistic forces.

for instance a former member "Assault"ed me with 2 platoons of Tigers and 2 or 3 of Brumbars plus SS pzgr... the idea that a force that tank heavy and slow would be assembled in one spot is a huge mistake for the high command. but I still had fun trying to pick it apart... until he got booted...