however , on page 31 the author says a balanced game would require 4 M1a2's ( gen 4 ) taking on 64 t34/85's ( gen 2 ) .
using the rules framework - points etc , etc I can't get anywhere near that amount of T34/85's ...
help please !!!!
GHQ modern micro rules - balancing forces ; page 31
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
gary seven
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:43 pm
GHQ modern micro rules - balancing forces ; page 31
I think is a great concept !!
however , on page 31 the author says a balanced game would require 4 M1a2's ( gen 4 ) taking on 64 t34/85's ( gen 2 ) .
using the rules framework - points etc , etc I can't get anywhere near that amount of T34/85's ...
help please !!!!
however , on page 31 the author says a balanced game would require 4 M1a2's ( gen 4 ) taking on 64 t34/85's ( gen 2 ) .
using the rules framework - points etc , etc I can't get anywhere near that amount of T34/85's ...
help please !!!!
-
dnichols
- E5
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Good question.
Here is the answer from the games designer, John Fernandes.
"The number of tanks must take into account the Cohesion
levels and Break Points of the two sides.
64xT34/85 x 88 points x .14 (Cohesion) / 40% (Break Point) =
1,971.2
4xM1A2 x 557 x .18 (Cohesion) /20% (Break Point) = 2,005.2
The difference is 34 points (quite a bit less than the cost
of an additional T34.)"
---Daryl
Here is the answer from the games designer, John Fernandes.
"The number of tanks must take into account the Cohesion
levels and Break Points of the two sides.
64xT34/85 x 88 points x .14 (Cohesion) / 40% (Break Point) =
1,971.2
4xM1A2 x 557 x .18 (Cohesion) /20% (Break Point) = 2,005.2
The difference is 34 points (quite a bit less than the cost
of an additional T34.)"
---Daryl
-
Donald M. Scheef
- E5
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:24 am
- Location: Waukegan, Illinois USA
Just a general comment on the process of "balancing" the forces in a scenario.
I have been trying to avoid balanced scenarios. Games seem more interesting when the sides are not approximately equal. Certainly most historical conflicts did not involve forces that agreed to bring comparable forces to the fight.
One method that I have found useful to create an unbalanced scenario that is still fair to the players is a 'reverse Dutch auction.' This does require advance participation of the players.
About a week before the actual game (depending on availability of models, etc.) the referee establishes the basic scenario (time, place, circumstances) and specifies the point value (using whatever gaming system you prefer) for one of the two sides. Note that the exact composition of this side is not specified.
Given this information, the players then place bids on what point value they want for the opposing side. The lowest bid wins. (Depending on the circumstances, the bidding players must include TOE with their bid, but this could also be done after the bidding, so long as a proper supply of figures is available. If TOE is required ahead of time, a discount may be given for historical organizations, etc.) If the point value is all that is required, this can be an open auction. If TOEs are required, then a sealed-bid auction is required.
The lowest bidder is required to play the opposing side using forces within his bid (and TOE if required ahead of time). The second lowest bidder plays the first side (or, if multiple players are involved, may choose to be a subordinate player to the low bidder - if this occurs, then commander of the first side goes to the next lowest bidder, etc.)
The beauty of this approach is that none of the players can complain about the fairness of the balance. If the low bidder finds that his force is not sufficent, he has no one but himself to blame because he put in the bid. If the commander of the first side discovers that he has a losing side, then he should have bid lower to get the other side.
The result is that you can get scenarios with a 3:1 ratio (attacker to defender) of forces with both sides satisfied that they made the better choice - until the actual combat begins.
Don Scheef
I have been trying to avoid balanced scenarios. Games seem more interesting when the sides are not approximately equal. Certainly most historical conflicts did not involve forces that agreed to bring comparable forces to the fight.
One method that I have found useful to create an unbalanced scenario that is still fair to the players is a 'reverse Dutch auction.' This does require advance participation of the players.
About a week before the actual game (depending on availability of models, etc.) the referee establishes the basic scenario (time, place, circumstances) and specifies the point value (using whatever gaming system you prefer) for one of the two sides. Note that the exact composition of this side is not specified.
Given this information, the players then place bids on what point value they want for the opposing side. The lowest bid wins. (Depending on the circumstances, the bidding players must include TOE with their bid, but this could also be done after the bidding, so long as a proper supply of figures is available. If TOE is required ahead of time, a discount may be given for historical organizations, etc.) If the point value is all that is required, this can be an open auction. If TOEs are required, then a sealed-bid auction is required.
The lowest bidder is required to play the opposing side using forces within his bid (and TOE if required ahead of time). The second lowest bidder plays the first side (or, if multiple players are involved, may choose to be a subordinate player to the low bidder - if this occurs, then commander of the first side goes to the next lowest bidder, etc.)
The beauty of this approach is that none of the players can complain about the fairness of the balance. If the low bidder finds that his force is not sufficent, he has no one but himself to blame because he put in the bid. If the commander of the first side discovers that he has a losing side, then he should have bid lower to get the other side.
The result is that you can get scenarios with a 3:1 ratio (attacker to defender) of forces with both sides satisfied that they made the better choice - until the actual combat begins.
Don Scheef
-
Donald M. Scheef
- E5
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:24 am
- Location: Waukegan, Illinois USA
Sorry, check the address. Pittsburgh doesn't qualify as Northwest US.
But you are welcome to pick up the idea and run with it.
If you are associated with a local club, make an announcement/post a bulletin, etc. State the game system, location, era and basic outline for the process. Pick something that is popular with your group (e.g., Operation Barbarrosa; scenario is a pre-planned German attack on a prepared Soviet position - provide map, objectives, etc.; Soviet forces may have any weapons available at the time up to [give point equivalent of about an infantry batallion] - 10% bonus (i.e., attached company) for historical TOE). Players will enter sealed bids for German force including proposed German TOE to match the bid and Soviet TOE, bids to be submitted at the next meeting, game to be played at next following meeting (to allow for assembling models, etc.). Lowest bidder gets to play German commander with his TOE. Next lowest bidder gets to play Soviet player (with his submitted TOE) - note that TOEs are not revealed to opposing players, just the bids - or may choose to play a subordinate German. Flesh out the details to your own preferences.
Don Scheef
But you are welcome to pick up the idea and run with it.
If you are associated with a local club, make an announcement/post a bulletin, etc. State the game system, location, era and basic outline for the process. Pick something that is popular with your group (e.g., Operation Barbarrosa; scenario is a pre-planned German attack on a prepared Soviet position - provide map, objectives, etc.; Soviet forces may have any weapons available at the time up to [give point equivalent of about an infantry batallion] - 10% bonus (i.e., attached company) for historical TOE). Players will enter sealed bids for German force including proposed German TOE to match the bid and Soviet TOE, bids to be submitted at the next meeting, game to be played at next following meeting (to allow for assembling models, etc.). Lowest bidder gets to play German commander with his TOE. Next lowest bidder gets to play Soviet player (with his submitted TOE) - note that TOEs are not revealed to opposing players, just the bids - or may choose to play a subordinate German. Flesh out the details to your own preferences.
Don Scheef