| 
				 
					05-13-2011, 07:23 PM,  
				 
				
			 | 
		 
		
			| 
				
			 | 
		 
		
			
				RE: Balancing a Scenario 
				
					 (05-13-2011, 02:04 AM)RADO Wrote:   (05-13-2011, 01:44 AM)Jason Petho Wrote:   (05-13-2011, 01:36 AM)RADO Wrote:  If I undestand correctly, a strength point gives "X" victory points in the game, regardless of what type it is. So if you lose a SP of PZ VIb's, you get the same VP's as if you lost a SP of T-26's. 
 
If that is not correct then I am even more confused than usual! 
 
:)  
No, that is not correct.  
 
Each platoon has a different Victory Point value per SP.  
 
For example: 
 
M3A1 Stuarts are worth 3 Victory Points per SP. 
M4A2 Shermans are worth 5 Victory Points per SP. 
M4A3E8 Shermans are worth 6 Victory Points per SP.  
 
Jason Petho  
I feel so much better now. That's the information I was looking for and I'm glad I was wrong. Is this information in the unit parameter data in the game? If so, there's where I need to go. 
 
As always Jason, you are a fountain of information. 
 
Thanks! 
Rado, just be careful when using "points" as a form of balance. It worked in the early version of Steel Panthers. It may not work in CS. 
A T-34/43 is worth "6" points. A Tiger I is "7".
 
You can also click "F2" when highlighting a unit and it will give you the point value of the unit.
 
Would you rather have a company of Tiger I's or company of T-34/43's? They are only "3" points apart? :chin:
  
HSL
				  
				
				
 
				
				
				 
			 | 
		 
		
			| 
				 
					
				 
				
			 | 
		 
	
 
	
		
			
				
					05-13-2011, 09:39 PM,   
(This post was last modified: 05-13-2011, 09:40 PM by Huib Versloot.)
				 
				
			 | 
		 
		
			| 
				
			 | 
		 
		
			
				RE: Balancing a Scenario 
				
					I agree with HSL (it happens) that one should be careful looking too much at unit points. 
I wrote a very small document with the basis of the method I normally use with some variety. 
It is attached here.
  
  balancing CS scns.pdf (Size: 336.64 KB / Downloads: 22)
				  
				
				
				
				
				 
			 | 
		 
		
			| 
				 
					
				 
				
			 | 
		 
	
 
	
		
			| 
				 
					05-13-2011, 10:27 PM,  
				 
				
			 | 
		 
		
			| 
				
			 | 
		 
		
			
				RE: Balancing a Scenario 
				
					 (05-13-2011, 10:20 PM)Ashcloud Wrote:   (05-13-2011, 09:39 PM)Huib Versloot Wrote:  I agree with HSL (it happens) that one should be careful looking too much at unit points. 
 
I wrote a very small document with the basis of the method I normally use with some variety. 
It is attached here.  
Within the pdf document you give an example of a scenario where the Americans are suppose to gain territory in the 
vicinity of Overloon in the The Netherlands - what is the name of the scenario and is it still available for download. It looks a blast to play and I would love to give it a go. 
It is called "Where There's Trouble..." It is a stock scn since the 1.03 update so you should already have it.
				  
				
				
				
				
				 
			 | 
		 
		
			| 
				 
					
				 
				
			 | 
		 
	
 
	
		
			| 
				 
					05-13-2011, 10:42 PM,  
				 
				
			 | 
		 
		
			
				
					
						| 
							
						 | 
						
							RADO 
 
 
							
								2nd Lieutenant 
								  
								
							
						 | 
						
							
	Posts: 323 
	Joined: Nov 2000
	
						 | 
					 
				 
			 | 
		 
		
			
				RE: Balancing a Scenario 
				
					 (05-13-2011, 07:23 PM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote:   (05-13-2011, 02:04 AM)RADO Wrote:   (05-13-2011, 01:44 AM)Jason Petho Wrote:   (05-13-2011, 01:36 AM)RADO Wrote:  If I undestand correctly, a strength point gives "X" victory points in the game, regardless of what type it is. So if you lose a SP of PZ VIb's, you get the same VP's as if you lost a SP of T-26's. 
 
If that is not correct then I am even more confused than usual! 
 
:)  
No, that is not correct.  
 
Each platoon has a different Victory Point value per SP.  
 
For example: 
 
M3A1 Stuarts are worth 3 Victory Points per SP. 
M4A2 Shermans are worth 5 Victory Points per SP. 
M4A3E8 Shermans are worth 6 Victory Points per SP.  
 
Jason Petho  
I feel so much better now. That's the information I was looking for and I'm glad I was wrong. Is this information in the unit parameter data in the game? If so, there's where I need to go. 
 
As always Jason, you are a fountain of information. 
 
Thanks!  
Rado, just be careful when using "points" as a form of balance. It worked in the early version of Steel Panthers. It may not work in CS. 
A T-34/43 is worth "6" points. A Tiger I is "7". 
 
You can also click "F2" when highlighting a unit and it will give you the point value of the unit. 
 
Would you rather have a company of Tiger I's or company of T-34/43's? They are only "3" points apart? :chin: 
 
  
 
HSL 
Well, if a T34 is six points and a Tiger I seven then I'd say the VP system is not very detailed, IMHO. It does however give one a very rudimentary tool for a starting point.
				  
				
				
				
				
				 
			 | 
		 
		
			| 
				
				
			 | 
		 
	
 
	
		
			| 
				 
					05-13-2011, 11:27 PM,  
				 
				
			 | 
		 
		
			| 
				
			 | 
		 
		
			| 
				RE: Balancing a Scenario 
				 
					Typical T34/43 platoon consists of 3 tanks, or 18 VP.  
 
Typical Tiger platoon consists of 4 tanks, or 28 VP.  
 
Jason Petho
				 
				
				
				
				
				 
			 | 
		 
		
			| 
				
				
			 | 
		 
	
 
	
		
			| 
				 
					05-13-2011, 11:38 PM,  
				 
				
			 | 
		 
		
			| 
				
			 | 
		 
		
			
				RE: Balancing a Scenario 
				
					 (05-13-2011, 10:42 PM)RADO Wrote:  Well, if a T34 is six points and a Tiger I seven then I'd say the VP system is not very detailed, IMHO. It does however give one a very rudimentary tool for a starting point. 
The value of the Tiger is on the battlefield, not in the point system. 
The greatest reward for an Allied player is not 7 VP but the fact that the Tiger is no longer there. 
In counting points ultimately the objectives in a scn are decisive. It is interesting to know one or two things about unit values, but I would not bother with them in your attempts to balance a first scenario. You would just make things overly complicated. Try to work with the document I posted earlier. It is not all that difficult.
 
Cheers 
Huib
				  
				
				
				
				
				 
			 | 
		 
		
			| 
				 
					
				 
				
			 | 
		 
	
 
	
		
			| 
				 
					05-14-2011, 12:43 AM,  
				 
				
			 | 
		 
		
			| 
				
			 | 
		 
		
			
				RE: Balancing a Scenario 
				
					 (05-13-2011, 11:38 PM)Huib Versloot Wrote:  Try to work with the document I posted earlier. It is not all that difficult. 
I concur, the document is an excellent start, especially since this is your first scenario. 
 
Jason Petho
				  
				
				
				
				
				 
			 | 
		 
		
			| 
				
				
			 | 
		 
	
 
	
		
			| 
				 
					05-14-2011, 01:36 AM,  
				 
				
			 | 
		 
		
			
				
					
						| 
							
						 | 
						
							RADO 
 
 
							
								2nd Lieutenant 
								  
								
							
						 | 
						
							
	Posts: 323 
	Joined: Nov 2000
	
						 | 
					 
				 
			 | 
		 
		
			| 
				RE: Balancing a Scenario 
				 
					Thanks guys! You have all been a big help.
				 
				
				
				
				
				 
			 | 
		 
		
			| 
				
				
			 | 
		 
	
 
	 
 |