Point costs and balance
 

Anyone noticed, that some units are ridiculously overpriced for what they do in the game and some units are ridiculously underpriced.

And, there are some crazy thinds like, the same mil mi-8 in finlands 2011 armylist that has 2 rocket launcher weapons costs 3pt more than the same chopper without any weapons at all. How crazy is this ?

Also, swedish armylist in 2011 has a flak gun, that has point cost 200pts, the same flak gun with radar is 204pts. 4pts for radar, are you kidding me, who would ever pick the one without ?

Why there are almost no anti tank guns sold in 2011, i'm pretty sure that some armies do have them in real life that cannot buy them in winspmbt ?

I'm eager to know what methods are the creators using picking the pts costs for units ?

Some pts are well though for sure, but there are many like those i mentioned.

Also, what use can one have for 300pts APC's. Isn't MBT quite a bit better and almost at the same price ?

Vision 40 is nice for apc but really, 2-300pts :o

Any one of you there hav good use for those expensive IFV's ?

Is it just my tactics lacking or why am i thinking those only of good pts for the opponent destroying them as easily as 40-50 pts APC's.

I also noticed that MBT's and such does no longer shoot ob planes, and neither do area sam's, i suppose this was changed in some patch because they fly too high to be shot at weapons like that, but why area sam ?

Re: Point costs and balance
 

Russia does still have them in the game, as well as several of its former clients.
As for everybody else, they mostly gave up on that item as soon as recoiless guns and ATGM became available. They simply have too many drawbacks for most applications. The soviets on the other hand thought there still was a,small to be sure, niche for them in their doctrine so they kept building them.

If you are going against talibans a Puma looks more attractive than a late model Leopard: cheaper, more HE rounds, internal infantry squad, armor still good enough against basic RPG and the same useful perks of the modern MBTs (high FC, TI)...

Re: Point costs and balance
 

*IF* I get the time this weekend and *IF* someone else doesn't answer I'll see if I can go through your list of complaints.

HOWEVER, as to "ob planes" and AAMG and "area sams" I can only assume, mainly becasue you offer NO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, that by "ob planes" you mean drones.

Did you read the release notes in the game guide ? Had you done so you would have read this for the last release

and

so for area sams it comes down to WHICH SAM's ( you don't say ) and what is the minimum range ( this assumes they may be small enough to bother engaging drones.) We've already had this question related to s-300's. Really ??? s-300's against a drone ? Seriously ? The old way was the problem not this change

As to the Swedish AA guns. It's the TI that pushes the cost up. TI pushes the cost of anything it equipts up.

.........and AT guns... right now beleve we issue them in the OOB's to the nations that actually still use them. If you're "pretty sure that some armies do have them in real life " then please provide us with the info on which nations are missing them and we will make the corrections

Don

Re: Point costs and balance
 

The ob plane problem encurerd when we had a match finland against sweden, the same time i spotted those abnormalities in the point cost with no weapons helicopter and the rocket one. So i guess the pts cost goes with some calculator and the creators are not picking them one by one. That would be quite lots of work, given the number of units and years in the game.

So, sweden has 200pts good area sam, but their inf sam and flak cost something like 300pts. Finland has flaks with radars with 50pts and 70pts, 300pts radar with sweden is 60range and finlands (soviet build?) flak with 70pts has 80 range and they hit almost the same. Map was very wide and we had rules that you may pick 3 ob planes and 2 unarmed helicopters or paradrop carrier plane.

So it turned out that sweden must invest in a large map whole lot of points, like almost 10% of the pts they have to use in the game we had and finnland could take pretty much the same defense with 1% of their points. That's when i first found out those things (as the previous patches i played did not have that problem.) So it made dropping UAV's (ranger uav) a real pain for sweds when playing fin vs swe in 2011 having to invest 300pts a piece for anti UAV equipment and the safe number would be something like 4 to get the needed area in the map and to have extra for the estimated losses for counter battery fire.

I noticed there is some kind of a filter for your units, you could filter the armor and such for the units your troops fire. Why couldnt that area sam's firing uav's problem be solved with it. Just set the needed armor value 1 more than the uav's and the SAM won't shoot it ?

I suppose that doesn't work with sams then.

It's quite a marginal problem, but it still got us starting a new game with no air sorties allowed at all.

So i suppose, the area sam's still fire those non UAV planes.

Isn't b-2 plane a bit inbalanced ?

What anti-aircraft weapons shoot it down.

Raptors seems pretty good too as a SEAD.

Once i had 2 of b-2's with JDAM's and they just dominated and was being shot 0 times in the whole game. Even s-300 did not fire them.

If b-2 is that good in the real life, would it be justified to get the pts cost up ?

Our solution was to ban the whole b-2 plane from our games.

For the IFV thing, isn't a cheap tank, a reserve tank, cs tank or obsolate tank still better than teh IFV ?

BTW i just like the way almost all finnish armoured mobile units have VIRS in 2011.

Also "sissi company", just brutal size 0 unit nightmare.

Anyone had trouble playing against finnish armylist because of massed size 0 and VIRS ?

They can easilly have couple hundred of size 0 units in relatively low cost games :o

At least, the PGM planes favourite target, a light truck doesn't have a VIRS. That would be too brutal.

Re: Point costs and balance
 

Simply put the B-2 is that good as are UAVs in general. And it's not just the platform but the payload your paying for as well. Precision guided weapons aren't cheap though the costs are coming down due to increased production rates the EXCALIBUR 155mm shell is a perfect example of this. The B-2 is said to have the radar cross section of something much smaller a then flock of birds early on (Rumored much less now with newer electronic suite now carried.) and not one has been lost in combat. Same can be said for the UAV that might appear smaller than a bird and operate at 25,000 to 70,000 feet. What brings them down?
Experienced SAM units. So for the privilege to buy and use them you'll pay the price. And we don't penalize countries for their advanced weapons, if we did Germany during WWII would be in big trouble where it was numbers and tactics that ultimatley defeated them, and if your upset about the B-2 wait until what I submit to improve the B-1B and B-52 this year. Technology marches on. I could make the same argument against the ARCHER SPA because of it's immediate real world shoot n scoot n shoot within a game turn capability. So if we get rid of the B-2 so long B-1B, F-22, F-35, J-20, PAK FA etc., though it would free up slot space!?! If your worried about air attack buy a mixed set of advanced anti air units that will gain experience though I understand in a one game setting this is harder. As we say here "You get what you pay for." it applies to the game as well. These are simplified arguments of course.
UAV's:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/zephyr/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...cles-uav-ucav/

B-2:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b2/

It is worth it for all above to check the "Related Links" as these normally address upgrade issues

Regards,
Pat

Re: Point costs and balance
 

The "cheap tank" in general does not carry an infantry squad inside but aside from that there is the little problem that Germany does not have any "cheap tank, a reserve tank, cs tank or obsolate tank" as of now. So the Puma looks attractive.

Re: Point costs and balance
 

And most modern IFV's can fight pretty much anything that comes around, Autocannon/HMG for anti-grunt/light vehicle work, and ATGM for tanks, don't forget the infantry squad that will help in close terrain.

Re: Point costs and balance
 

Still not quite fond of those costly IFV's. Maybe i have to test them more, but they have not yet given me a reason to take over cheap apc and having more tanks instead.

Yeah, b-2 is supposed to be good, but what anti air in winspmbt patch 5.5 can shoot it down ?

UAV's are quite easy to shoot down compared to b-2, because many platforms do not even fire for it, pantsyr is this far the only one firing b-2 and it has a change to drop it at least, it has 3 sam's so shooting 6 times with 2-3% accuracy might do the job if one is lucky to hit it.

Is there a better one against b-2 than pantsyr ?

Re: Point costs and balance
 

Well, the issue has been debated in real life too. Not everyone was in favor of IFVs but at the end of the day almost everyone adopted it eventually; only the israelis have rejected it AFAIK.

Re: Point costs and balance
 

My 2 cents : a.k.a. adding oil to the flames...

I've been tempted to brooch this subject for some time but have been resisting due to the feeling that there is no "solution" and bringing it up would do more harm then good.

Unit Class #50 (Air Obs Aircraft)
Examples (default USMC OOB #013)

Unit #251 FO Aircraft (01/46-12/120)
Cost=36 size=2 EW=0 Vision=0

Unit #250 OV-10A Bronco (07/68-12/89)
Cost=73 size=2 EW=1 Vision=20

Unit #253 OV-10D Bronco (01/90-12/120)
Cost=167 size=2 EW=3 Vision=40

Unit #252 OV-1 Mohawk (01/94-12/120)
Cost=177 size=4 EW=4 Vision=40

Unit #254 UAV (01/90-12/120)
Cost=171 size=0 EW=5 Vision=40

Examples (my revised USMC OOB #013)

Unit #251 OE-1 Bird Dog (01/46-12/120)
Cost=36 size=1 EW=0 Vision=0

Unit #250 OV-10A Bronco (08/67-07/93)
Cost=90 size=2 EW=3 Vision=10

Unit #253 OV-10D Bronco (01/79-07/93)
Cost=167 size=2 EW=3 Vision=40

Unit #252 OV-1C Mohawk (01/62-06/68)
Cost=83 size=3 EW=2 Vision=20

Unit #254 RQ-2 Pioneer (01/85-12/102)
Cost=101 size=0 EW=5 Vision=30

Unit #631 RQ-7 Shadow (01/91-12/102)
Cost=191 size=0 EW=7 Vision=40

Unit #869 UAV AAI Shadow (01/103-12/120)
Cost=231 size=0 EW=9 Vision=40

Whole aerial observation is VERY handy in WinSPMBT it's rare for the observation aircraft to survive even one pass once MANPADS start to proliferate in the game (the AI invariably has 2 to 4 times as many as would normally be seen in a force the size fielded). Thus they are rarely worth the scarce "Air" slot or the unit cost.

Solution?
Well, cut the costs by 50% and perhaps make them not cost an "air" slot when purchased.
Better yet, cut AI MANPAD purchase by 50% or more!

**********
**********
On a related subject it seems Vision 40 adds a blanket 100 points to the cost of any unit. While Thermal Imaging IS very nice ... is it 100 points worth of nice?

Re: Point costs and balance
 

Have you ever played a tank battle as Iraq vs USA in 1991?

Re: Point costs and balance
 

As I said in another thread to another poster I am quite willing to cut newbies some slack when they make off the wall statements unless they show up with "attitude" but I am less forgiving of experienced players who should know better.

Please show me an EXACT example where adding TI gives a 100 point boost. Pick a unit that has no TI, give it TI then post it here showing the cost calculator gives it 100 points more.

You won't be able to because IT DOES NOT and you could have found that out in 1/4 of the time it took you to type that.

Typically TI adds 80 points ( armour or infantry slight variations occur due to experience and morale factors but it won't add up to 100) and if your tank has it and the other guy doesn't and the visibiity is 10 he's toast so it's well worth it. If visibity is 40 then "Waaaaaaaa I paid too much for this."

It IS getting old trying to make everyone happy so would you PLEASE do me the courtesy of doing a bit of research first before making unsupportable blanket statements like that in the future ?

Thanks

Don

Re: Point costs and balance
 

Somewhat experienced as a winspmbt player, i take it strange, that a radar get's you only 4pts increase in 200pts unit as i mentioned before.

I do know, that it makes a difference, big time. More like a 100pts than 4pts.

Putting that aside, 204pts might be justified cost to that radar using AA gun of sweden 2011, but 200pts for it without radar is a joke. It does not even have vision 40 and is alltogether quite a crappy gun. Low kill + low range. Range is very important for a gun like that in my opinion.

More like 50-60 pts worth if you ask me. (double the points with a radar, or add 100pts.)

Vision 40 in ob plane is quite nice, but it's situational, sometimes you do not really need it, combine taking one of both.

But in those examples i think there was an EW boost also.

And if it's between UAV and regular plane, then i think the UAV status adds some pts also.

Given the airstrikes, i hardly see any use of them. Only planes i would use in a serious games would be b-2 and raptor. Others are just not good in my opinion.

Russia got some good ones, but are easilly dropped by the top anti aircraft weapons. (Those that got 8 PGM's in one slot.)

(We play it so, that if you take planes / gunships you have to tell beforehand, because it's quite frustrating to take SAM's when opponent does not have any air sorties used at all, even if tere are some to choose.)

What kind of point level you guys use playing WinSPMBT ?

I am used to play something between 10 000pts and 20 000pts.

Never played a game with more than 20 000pts.

Some time ago, i used to play under 10 000pts.

BTW for IFV's, i really do not think it as a bonus to be able to carry infantry, because a normal APC can do that with cheaper cost also. Also in my opinion, not all infantry needs an APC and infantry is so overpowered that we limit their numbers, so i always take the maximum number allowed.

Also, we have been using "you have to get tanks for x pts" rule, because in my opinion, if i want to take as strong army as i can in winspMBT, i do not take tanks at all. I take only apc's, artillery and infantry. There is nothing a MBT can do in my tactics better than infantry cannot. Massed inf-ATGM always have been better hunting tanks than MBT in my experience. In later patche's infantry was even more overpowered compared to tanks and such.

What kind of "rules" you guys set for your winspmbt games ?

Commonly used in my end have been limiting infantry, size 0 units, artillery, some units that are too good or gamebreaking, or just banning them (like b-2), banning cluster / bomblet using artillery + rocket launchers, telling if you have gunships/air strikes, and setting a minimum pts to be used in tanks.

This is because, without limiting the purchases, the armies you can field in the game are just ridiculous if opponent did not take as overpowered army, the game is pretty much decided with the unit choises alone.

How do you guys set your victory hexes in your games ?

Also, we use a rule that size 0 unit cannot take victory hexes and you have to have gun in your vehicle to do so. Infantry units that have lost over 50% of their men also cannot take hexes.

What you guys/gals think about these rules ? (where in map and in what formations / do you stack them together etc.)

(Almost typed only guys, but made me think, that maybe there are some female players out there, even i suspect there ain't.)

Re: Point costs and balance
 

If the problems you detail were as common as you think they are we would be inundated with similar complaints but more importantly, we would have noticed this ourselves long ago

Don

Re: Point costs and balance
 

Lanniken,

1. Did you bother reading any of what I supplied in way of refs concerning UAV's, otherwise you wouldn't be questioning the vision issue. These UAV's are not cheap and cost millions of dollars in the real world, doesn't it make sense they'd be expensive in the game world also!?!

2. APC sounds more like a tactical decision on your part then a game issue, in regards again to vision, several 100 thousand dollars plus for more advanced systems. In the last Patch Post (See thread.) for example I pointed out the LAV-AD had a FC circuit card that by itself cost 100K+. This is the reality of the modern battle field. One of the oldest battlefield axioms is sort of "He who shoots first wins" this is the why countries invest so much in this and other tech. The IFV is in most modern armies a tenant of the "combined arms" theory.

3. The U.S. didn't sign the treaty in banning the use of CM munitions along with other "civilized" countries. So "BOMBS AWAY" and "INCOMING"!!

4. B-2 and other shoot down issues, S-200, 300, 400, and PATRIOT etc. buy them early! One to five game sets AREN'T going to get you the EXPRIENCE you need to make them better. That's why I play 17, 19, 21 or 23 game length campaigns against the AI. Otherwise shoot and prey!

5. DO YOUR RESEARCH OFF LEGITIMATE SITES PLEASE!!!

Regards,
Pat

Re: Point costs and balance
 

I was not the one to complaint about the cost of UAV's. It was some other poster, and i replied to him/her in my last post about them.

Many of my "statements" i mean winspmbt as a game that might not be as realistic as the real war is. How could it be ?

So, please do not compare my winspmbt stories with real life issues.

But thanks for replies and i would appriciate to read other winspmbt users (a great game!) about those "rules", "what pt cost you plat", "hex" and "is aircrafts worth the pts" questions i asked etc.

Also, those things depend on the map and visibility. In visibility 1, vision is golden! But i usually play high visibility games.

In a desert map where there is no forests or almost anything but desert, tanks rule ok. But in a dense forest map and maps with lots of buildings and forest etc, infantry does rule.

Desert maps are boring so i do not play them quite often, i like maps with forests and such.

But i have to say, infantry is "crap" in those desert maps. No hiding places etc, and opponent can shoot from miles away. In a dense forest, you may even do some assaulting against MBT's and stuff. If opponents is even willing to bring his MBT's to a dense forest.

(So maybe i should have told i do not play desert maps when i made that infantry statement against the armored options.)

Vision 40 in modern battles is very good yes, but for me, i'm satisfied with vision 40 MBT's over IFV's. It's my opinion.

If i can pick between 2 IFV's and 1 MBT with vision 40, it's not a hard choise for me to choose. (1 MBT _always_.)

(And in some cases, i can pick from 2 tanks vs 1 IFV with vision 40, so i pick the tanks and have some vision 40 MBT's as a backup.)

Also, i do apprieciate very much that this great game is made free and thank the programmers, and i'm not complaining in my point of view as much as the response might be thinking.

Also, my facts in this matter are my WINSPMBT experience, i do not link it with anything else. I research my WINSPMBT matters with WINSPMBT alone and WINSPMBT is my truth about WINSPMBT etc. (So, i do my research of this game by playing it, or browsing the army lists.)

BTW, i do not play against AI, i play against human opponents, it's far more satisfying with a human general as an opponent. So, it's 1 game with the troops i pick.

I think i have tested those you have suggested, and the pantsyr seems little bit better against b-2 still :/

Re: Point costs and balance
 

My apologies, I SHOULD have done some research before making a blanket statement about a +100 point cost addition.

I stand (can't sit because I have Dons' teeth marks in my arse) corrected :doh:

Re: Point costs and balance
 

Remind me never to complain about this game. Never ever ever. In fact I am kinda nervous about just posting this.

Re: Point costs and balance
 

Complain away, just make sure that (unlike me) you face your facts straight before you do :re: