How about a Petition

Lethaface said:
I get the impression that for you the Pz IV performs like a R35, or at least that's the impression you share ;-). Let's assume the tests are accurate, 5% spotting differences is 5%, not 50%. In a normal fight the 5% wouldn't really be noticeable.
Click to expand...
I agree - although 15% already amounts to something.

Bulletpoint said:
Anyway, about the topic at hand, could we even agree enough about what the problem is to make a petition? There is no hard data to show that people don't use StuGs for example. Everybody who plays CM regularly knows it, but since Steve doesn't play his own game (by his own admission), he probably thinks everything is just fine. If some of you guys who are high on the ladder could agree that "people avoid these vehicles in competitive QB's" then maybe that could be a documentation of sorts. And then a list of people who don't play ladder games, like me, signing it because we agree.
Click to expand...
I have the same view that I don't see enough agreement here that there is a problem. If half of the players think there is a problem and the other half does not, then there is no reason for anything to be changed. We would need a poll first :)
 
Lethaface said:
Also it is quite nice that if your tanks is moving somewhere it can actually shoot to it's left/right, without coming to a halt and turning the vehicle.
Click to expand...
But this is a modern warfare thing, right? I'm not really hitting anything on the move with WW2 tanks.

Lethaface said:
Also, try quickly area firing around a corner with shoot & scoot using a casemated vehicle.
Click to expand...

I think this works ok, as long as you're not giving the vehicle a path to turn 90 degrees. A StuG on the move can turn fast as long as you give it a couple of waypoints to soften the turn. "Just two more waypoints to flatten the curve"
 
Bulletpoint said:
I'm wondering if the reason I don't see much value in turrets in CM is that I don't play the modern warfare titles. Shoot and scoot doesn't really work when you can't reliably spot and engage the target in the brief time you're exposing the tank. I wish somebody would explain what exactly they can do with a turret that they can't with a casemate. Maybe it's just me being daft.
Click to expand...
Any time youre ending up with tanks having to engage within 200m the turret is extremely important.
But even if used correctly in the one qb i actually used stugs one failed to engage a sherman moving across its field of fire 800m away because everytime it was about done aiming it had to turn again to keep up and start all over.
 
Bulletpoint said:
But this is a modern warfare thing, right? I'm not really hitting anything on the move with WW2 tanks.
Click to expand...
Youre not expecting to hit anything at any reasonable distance like that but it can be great to supress known positions while you have to get someplace.
 
Bulletpoint said:
I'm just a grumpy old man of 41 :) I'm not saying it's useless, just that I find it a tank with poor spotting, poor armour and a poor price point. I've never been in love with Panthers and Tigers.. I prefer units that punch above their weight. So would have loved for the Panzer IV to be a value star. But it punches well below its weight, as I see it. Least favourite vehicle in the game for me.
Click to expand...

Lol I'm only 3 years younger, although they say 3 is a godly number ;-)

Anyway I feel it's a decent tank, certainly not the best armoured but it has a good gun. Spotting is adequate imo, it certainly doesn't have thermal optics but neither do other WW2 vehicles. On average I'd say it will trade fairly equal with Shermans, with better tactics deciding the upper hand imo. All in all I feel it is a tank which can punch above it's weight (compared to the other choices), if managed well. It certainly isn't a steal points wise.
 
Bulletpoint said:
But this is a modern warfare thing, right? I'm not really hitting anything on the move with WW2 tanks.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily strictly modern. I'm not saying that a fast moving tank will often hit a target at 800m in WW2. However, if it spots any target not directly to it's front it can at least engage it while on the move. Enemy infantry in the open or in buildings, at guns, etc. And at close range firing on the move can certainly be effective, although that's another area where the Sherman is better with it's stabilizer.

Also, flank rushes are quite the bit more risky for casemated vehicles. It will need to rotate the hull exposing it's side, where a turreted tank could 'just' turn the turret.
 
Lethaface said:
Also, flank rushes are quite the bit more risky for casemated vehicles. It will need to rotate the hull exposing it's side, where a turreted tank could 'just' turn the turret.
Click to expand...
Not saying you're wrong there, but it's a double-edged sword.. I've lost quite a few Panthers because they discovered some target (usually a truck or a lone infantry survivor in a shellhole) to their side and turned the turret to engage. Then get hit from the front. With StuGs, they turn so slowly that I often have luck making it to the orders phase again and enabling a target arc.
 
Bulletpoint said:
I think this works ok, as long as you're not giving the vehicle a path to turn 90 degrees. A StuG on the move can turn fast as long as you give it a couple of waypoints to soften the turn. "Just two more waypoints to flatten the curve"
Click to expand...
Yeah smooth turns help the speed of turning. But still it will have to maneuvre much more and show more flank for the same amount of time on target. In short range fighting and especially urban, I don't think it's really viable.

Of course if you have the Stug you're going to make do with it.
 
Bulletpoint said:
Not saying you're wrong there, but it's a double-edged sword.. I've lost quite a few Panthers because they discovered some target (usually a truck or a lone infantry survivor in a shellhole) to their side and turned the turret to engage. Then get hit from the front. With StuGs, they turn so slowly that I often have luck making it to the orders phase again and enabling a target arc.
Click to expand...
Yeah the slow turn rate of the Panther turret is surely not one of it's pro's. It actually makes them vulnerable to tanks rushing their flanks (and or tricking them to turn the turret), although still not on the same level like Stugs imo. However, not all turrets move at that speed. And yes I agree everything has it's strengths and weaknesses. So sometimes the slow turning of a Stug can actually turn into an advantage lol.
C'est la vie.

Bulletpoint said:
Anyway, about the topic at hand, could we even agree enough about what the problem is to make a petition? There is no hard data to show that people don't use StuGs for example. Everybody who plays CM regularly knows it, but since Steve doesn't play his own game (by his own admission), he probably thinks everything is just fine. If some of you guys who are high on the ladder could agree that "people avoid these vehicles in competitive QB's" then maybe that could be a documentation of sorts. And then a list of people who don't play ladder games, like me, signing it because we agree.
Click to expand...
Coming back to this: I'm not sure if people agree enough. For sure everybody has their own pet peeve.

I think all ladder games I played were scenario's. The QBs I play I mostly are the smaller ones in tournament games. So usually that means no more than a couple of tanks and with standard/strict rarity. While I think Panthers are 'the meta', I have sure seen some PzIVs, but no Stugs or casemated vehicles IIRC.
Also, while coincidentally I've often played those with US forces I've never chosen the M4/M4A1 IIRC. But if I went for a 75mm always the M4A3(W)75, because it has no rarity. Leaves room for 105mm / Easy Eight etc with rarity. So I've never chosen the 'cheap' Sherman hordes.
Anyway I'm surely not one of the people with the most QBs behind their names.
 
I wonder how many people actually play QBs? What would be your guess - 50, 100? Out of those how many actually check this forum or the BFC forum more or less regularly - third, half? What I am trying to say that the opinion about pricing here, in this forum, pretty much reflects the general consensus of those who play QBs for a simple fact that there are just very few of us. If we get even ten people behind it that would in my estimate be the majority of those who actually play QBs and more or less active on the forums (here or the BFC one).
 
Larsen said:
I wonder how many people actually play QBs? What would be your guess - 50, 100? Out of those how many actually check this forum or the BFC forum more or less regularly - third, half? What I am trying to say that the opinion about pricing here, in this forum, pretty much reflects the general consensus of those who play QBs for a simple fact that there are just very few of us. If we get even ten people behind it that would in my estimate be the majority of those who actually play QBs and more or less active on the forums (here or the BFC one).
Click to expand...
The prices also affect scenario players. More expensive vehicles count more in the attrition based victory conditions.

This is an important point to make in the petition. The problem we are trying to solve affects more players than it seems at first sight.
 
Redwolf said:
The prices also affect scenario players. More expensive vehicles count more in the attrition based victory conditions.
Click to expand...
That effect is only relative within each unit objective. If I assign four PzIVs and four Stugs to a 100 point unit objective that just means the four Stugs will total a bit more than 50 points. The difference is nearly meaningless - could be 10 points out of 1000 it a typical case.

Redwolf said:
This is an important point to make in the petition. The problem we are trying to solve affects more players than it seems at first sight.
Click to expand...
I disagree - see above. I would not bother mention this at all as it would just distract from the main point.
 
I guess that depends on who you ask. :ROFLMAO:

Edit: I think some of us feel that there is an issue with certain tank destroyers with casemates instead of turrets which are costwise not really interesting as a choice in QBs and therefore never get selected (i.e. Stugs, JPz IV, etc). Fix would be to change/lower the cost so that they are a viable choice.
 
My problem is only with the price of StuGs and Pz IVs. As fast as JPz IV goes it is TD with very tough front armor. You need either a side shot or a Firefly or M10 late to kill it from the front.
StuG is not a TD. It is an assult gun that has descent anti armor capabilities, has limited antiinfrantry capability, has an ok (not great armor), does not have a turret, has a 4 men crew etc. It is a really weird animal. There are no vehicles in CM that are in any way similar to StuGs. I think the formula that prices StuGs overvalues it's front armor. It is a descent armor from one hand. From another hand the cheapest Sherman can penetrate it frontally from about 600M (a somewhat typical distance in QBs).
Pz IVs are very similar to Sherman's in many ways if you take into account the armor difference for Allies and Axis. I don't understand why the cheapest Sherman is 40 points cheaper. That does not make sense at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fwiw I do personally think it would be better to separate the potential issues regarding Sherman and casemated vehicles.
Larsen said:
My problem is only with the price of StuGs and Pz IVs. As fast as JPz IV goes it is TD with very tough front armor. You need either a side shot or a Firefly or M10 late to kill it from the front.
Click to expand...

The JPz IV has quite good frontal armor (especially the late version), but at the moment the cheapest JPz with the same gun as the PzIV/Stug/Hetzer costs 319 points. The late version 337. That is too close to the Panther for it to be interesting imo.
The JpZ IV (V) 70 costs the same as a Panther.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom