Point Values

[K K Rossokolski]

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

That's good....rarity was not the best word, but I recall it, or perhaps "scarcity", ias used n an earlier discussion on truck value. No matter. I reiterate two points. Generally values of CS have held up well over time, and to me it defies logic and commonsense to suggest that all tanks are created equal, as it were. Is a Sherman Firefly
equal to an early Sherman. Of couse not. There was a need for a better tank, hence the Sherman was upgunned and uparmoured in various ways. The later Shermans were thus of greater value. Simple as that.

I would like to open a discussion of transport values in general, an area where CS has always had problems. Would a new thread be better?