Point Values

[K K Rossokolski]

I thought so, but must confess I don't see what point you are trying to make. When talking about combat value, HQs and leaders are no examples, as they are neither combat nor transport. They fulfill a different function and have only a limited self defence capability. Neither have they transport capability (leaders IMO are overly limited because they are blind, but that is a separate issue). The 251/6 example eludes me. It was not, as I recall in any original TS orbat and I cannot find it in a JTCS current OOB. But again, a special purpose HQ unit rather than a combat unit, and hardly relevant for transport.
And the Bren carrier, "As for transport, check out carriers vs trucks. Similar carrying capacity, similar attack values (1 vs HD has as much chance of inflicting losses as 0 vs HD"
You are telling me a Bren gun carrier has a similar carrying capacity to a 2 1/2 ton truck????? Perhaps if the Brits were very tiny soldiers, like mini hobbits. And both mathematically and empirically, there is a fundamental difference between 1 and 0...between something and nothing.
And we could discuss whether in use the Bren Carrier was primarily a transport or a fighting vehicle.

My point, perhaps not well made initially, is that in general, combat values in CS have held up pretty well over the years. There may well be some room for adjustment around the edges, but tripling the cost for losing a truck, or the reward for getting it off the exit objective is not adjustment, it is a fundamental realignment of values, based I believe on a perception of "rarity" rather than capability, and is wrong.

[Huib Versloot]

because they will PROBABLY lose about 50 sp Volksgrenadiers which are 2vp worth more than the American infantry for some irrelevant reason.

Your kidding right?
Volksgrenadiers start appearing in 1944?
Each German soldier was worth more than his American counter part due to the fact the Germans had severe manpower issues.

The Germans could not afford losses like the Americans could.

That is not an irrelevant reason.

Thanx!

Hawk

Erik,

While the manpower issue is true (and just as true for the Canadians in late 1944, early 1945 for example), it is irrelevant in the scope of a CS scenario, which is not a campaign game but restricted to smaller battles without replacements.
You might as well say than that a single Tiger tank should be worth 50 or 100 vp as this could be it's relative value compared with a Sherman or T34 in 1944-45. To come back to the Volksgrenadier. The fact that the volksgrenadier appears in 1944 is irrelevant as well. My point is that it should not be worth more than an US inf unit because it's capability is not more (in fact a US inf unit with morale 8 is much better than a volksgren with morale 5). And even if it was, it would be better for the game if values were equal, because I would represent the historical difference of quality in the scenario design's victory conditions taking into account the historical situation and morale etc..

Huib

[K K Rossokolski]

From Post #15

For example: (From East Front Germans, two organizations, one Green, one Veteran)

39 12 40 10 C0102332 5 Type 6 Schützenkompanie c.(mot) 40 (Green)(K.St.N. 1115)[Krupp Protze]
39 12 40 10 P01859 I. Zug .... is worth 3VPx6SP=18VP
39 12 40 10 P01859 II. Zug .... is worth 3VPx6SP=18VP
39 12 40 10 P01859 III. Zug .... is worth 3VPx6SP=18VP
39 12 40 10 P01213 Hv MG Zug .... is worth 3VPx4SP=12VP
39 12 40 10 P01290 Krupp Protze .... is worth 3VPx3SP=9VP
39 12 40 10 P01290 Krupp Protze .... is worth 3VPx3SP=9VP
39 12 40 10 P01290 Krupp Protze .... is worth 3VPx3SP=9VP
39 12 40 10 P01289 Krupp Protze .... is worth 3VPx4SP=12VP

Total = 18+18+18+12+9+9+9+12 = 105 VP

39 12 40 10 C0102333 7 Type 6 Schützenkompanie c.(mot) 40 (Veteran)(K.St.N. 1115)[Krupp Protze]
39 12 40 10 P01407 Haupt. .... is worth 6VPx2SP=12VP
39 12 40 10 P01860 I. Zug .... is worth 4VPx6SP=24VP
39 12 40 10 P01860 II. Zug .... is worth 4VPx6SP=24VP
39 12 40 10 P01860 III. Zug .... is worth 4VPx6SP=24VP
39 12 40 10 P01213 Hv MG Zug .... is worth 3VPx4SP=12VP
39 12 40 10 P01290 Krupp Protze .... is worth 3VPx3SP=9VP
39 12 40 10 P01290 Krupp Protze .... is worth 3VPx3SP=9VP
39 12 40 10 P01290 Krupp Protze .... is worth 3VPx3SP=9VP
39 12 40 10 P01289 Krupp Protze .... is worth 3VPx4SP=12VP

Total = 12+24+24+24+12+9+9+9+12 = 135 VP for the company.


Jason Petho

Not quite so....the green Coy has no leader ( 12 points), thus the value difference is not 30, but should be 18.

[Huib Versloot]

Just as irrelevant. A tank is a tank. If one was more expendable on the battlefield than the other, no officer would admit it. Both have crews.

Huib

What an ABSURD statement!!!!! That is tantamount to saying that NO officer, or indeed any soldier, has or had ANY conception of his enemy strengths or his own limitations. Such knowledge is fundamental to the military profession. For example, the Americans were well aware of the limitations of the Sherman, hence the various nicknames alluding to its vulnerability. VADM Holland was well aware of the vulnerability of HMS HOOD to the steeper trajectory of long range fire, and chose to approach BISMARK and PRINZ EUGEN as quickly as possible, at the cost of masking half the firepower of his own force at a critical time. He was wrong.

Do you have any basis for that ridiculous and offensive statement?
I have seen some tripe written this forum in the last 10 or so years, and indeed have contributed my share. But that one, to mix a metaphor, takes the cake.

Rod,
by calling my statement absurd it is obvious you miss my point. either I have not been clear, or I'm just ahead of you and a few others in the thinking process based on my experience in scenario designing. That may be why it initially sounds absurd to you, but doesn't anymore once you place yourself in my thinking process. Some people will never catch up and continue the discussion on their own intellectual level, unaware that they do not contribute anything. I understand them, they do not understand me, but they think they do. I have to live with their dumb remarks.
However that is part of the game when discussions are being done in public.

I mean that tanks should be equal in vp in the game (tank = tank). I don't mind a distinction in light, med, heavy tanks as it is now. The difference in quality/value should be represented in the victory conditions IMO.
The current situation were a Panther is 7 vp and a T34 6vp is just blurring. either they should be equal, or the Panther should be 30 or something compared with 6 of the T34 if one would go the road where values should be different. The current allocation of vp for units in CS is such an a-historical mess, that I would favour for a more simple system rather than make it more complicated.
Then again I did not start this thread. I can find my way and make scenarios balanced, even in this mess. In fact I can even make other people's scenarios balanced. I've have done that on request many times.

Huib

[K K Rossokolski]

Rod,
by calling my statement absurd it is obvious you miss my point. either I have not been clear, or I'm just ahead of you and a few others in the thinking process based on my experience in scenario designing. That may be why it initially sounds absurd to you, but doesn't anymore once you place yourself in my thinking process. Some people will never catch up and continue the discussion on their own intellectual level, unaware that they do not contribute anything. I understand them, they do not understand me, but they think they do. I have to live with their dumb remarks.
However that is part of the game when discussions are being done in public.

Huib

I'm a simple sort of chap, friend. I don't claim to read your mind, only what you wrote down. Clearly, you have a unique understanding of the mind of the military officer.

I reiterate, your statement is both absurd, and demeaning to the Profession of Arms, where I spent my working life.

But please, please allow me to complement you on your intelligence. I feel priviledged to be able to even communicate with the owner of such gifts, I could never aspire to your rarified intellectual level. And your modesty is....remarkable!!

I suppose all I can do is to continue basing my comments in this forum on my real life experience.

[umbro]

I thought so, but must confess I don't see what point you are trying to make. When talking about combat value, HQs and leaders are no examples, as they are neither combat nor transport. They fulfill a different function and have only a limited self defence capability. Neither have they transport capability (leaders IMO are overly limited because they are blind, but that is a separate issue).

I think that we seem to be in violent agreement that the VP assignment was used for multiple purposes from the first version of the game, not simply a measure of combat values.

The 251/6 example eludes me. It was not, as I recall in any original TS orbat and I cannot find it in a JTCS current OOB. But again, a special purpose HQ unit rather than a combat unit, and hardly relevant for transport.

My bad, typo. I was referring to the 251/16 which is 5VP per SP based on its assault value, which as has been discussed many times is irrelevant in the game.

You are telling me a Bren gun carrier has a similar carrying capacity to a 2 1/2 ton truck????? Perhaps if the Brits were very tiny soldiers, like mini hobbits.

I was trying to point out (particularly poorly it seems) that they are both transport units and though the truck carries more the carrier is worth more VP in your estimation.

And both mathematically and empirically, there is a fundamental difference between 1 and 0...

Quantitatively perhaps, but not significantly in game terms. The CRT requires that you achieve better than 1:3 to have any chance of causing a loss, the vast majority of defence strengths are greater than three, thus the universal carrier and truck have equivalent offensive capabilities. The only exception is when they meet each other in combat.

My point, perhaps not well made initially, is that in general, combat values in CS have held up pretty well over the years. There may well be some room for adjustment around the edges, but tripling the cost for losing a truck, or the reward for getting it off the exit objective is not adjustment, it is a fundamental realignment of values, based I believe on a perception of "rarity" rather than capability, and is wrong.

Here we agree entirely (almost). I would have added a new truck unit for use in future scenarios without affecting old ones. I do disagree with your choice of the word "rarity". I think that from the very beginning "value" was the measure of VPs, and that value was more complex than simple "combat values" in that it took into consideration supply from HQs, leadership bonuses, transport capability, mobility, etc.

umbro

[Mike Abberton]

Here we agree entirely (almost). I would have added a new truck unit for use in future scenarios without affecting old ones. I do disagree with your choice of the word "rarity". I think that from the very beginning "value" was the measure of VPs, and that value was more complex than simple "combat values" in that it took into consideration supply from HQs, leadership bonuses, transport capability, mobility, etc.

umbro

It seems to me that the next iteration of the CS game (assuming there is one other than tweaking the current JTCS) will have to seriously contemplate abandoning the old scenarios and just come up with a new consolidated plan to edal with issues like this. As cool as some of the new features are (and as incomprehensible as some of the others are), they can really stretch the core game mechanics past the breaking point when trying to apply them to all the old scenarios. When we have to have 6 or 7 different German 251/1 HTs to match 4 eras and 3 games (EFII, WF, and JTCS) worth of scenario development, it might be time to take the next step (or quit while we are still ahead).

Just my thoughts.
Mike

[Huib Versloot]

I'm a simple sort of chap, friend. I don't claim to read your mind, only what you wrote down. Clearly, you have a unique understanding of the mind of the military officer.

I reiterate, your statement is both absurd, and demeaning to the Profession of Arms, where I spent my working life.

But please, please allow me to complement you on your intelligence. I feel priviledged to be able to even communicate with the owner of such gifts, I could never aspire to your rarified intellectual level. And your modesty is....remarkable!!

I suppose all I can do is to continue basing my comments in this forum on my real life experience.

Rod,
Maybe I am not being very modest, but you are being sarcastic after calling a statement absurd based your own (I think) misinterpretation of my words. I don't ask you to read my mind, I ask you to understand what I'm trying to explain. Instead of asking a clarification you are so confident about your knowledge gained "in the field" that you jump to the conclusion that what I say must be absurd and demeaning. While I entirely respect your service record and experience, you are wrong about my statement.

Maybe you could think twice or count to 10 before calling things absurd and ridiculous. It is not nice.
Rather tell me the added value in the game (not real life!!) of having different vp values for different tank types. How do I calculate those back in the victory conditions when they are so subjective as is currently the case. Or how do would you do that in your own designs?
Personally I always come back to historical plausible kill rates translated to the victory conditions and different values only mean extra calculations of which I don't see added value.

Huib

[Steel God]

Guys;

I don't want to see discussions shut down, and will let them go until it gets out of hand. A member (not one participating in the discussion as a matter of fact) has reported this thread as getting personal. We're all grown ups I believe. We can, and should be able to, discuss points and disagree without having to resort to name calling to vent frustration. Please stay on point and be as charitable as you can when posting. We're all on the same side here (which would be the side of the hobby in case I'm being too vague).

Thank you gents;

Paul

[Glint]

It was'nt me !!!!!!