How about a Petition

[Stafford]

My view is that bugs that affect gameplay are most in need of fixing, ie, the old pinned-and-run-towards-enemy bug in CMBN, or looting AT weapons but only gaining one charge for it. Also the tank teleporting bug.
There's also the various issues with spotting, although I don't know if that could be considered a 'bug' or just an engine limitation.

If the Panther G (late) of november 1944 has the wrong headlight screws or whatever, well, that's not so critical.

 

[Bulletpoint]

My view is that bugs that affect gameplay are most in need of fixing, ie, the old pinned-and-run-towards-enemy bug in CMBN, or looting AT weapons but only gaining one charge for it. Also the tank teleporting bug.
There's also the various issues with spotting, although I don't know if that could be considered a 'bug' or just an engine limitation.

If the Panther G (late) of november 1944 has the wrong headlight screws or whatever, well, that's not so critical.

I don't think you'll find anybody here disagreeing with that.

 

[Redwolf]

Should we collaborate on a Google doc to get this rolling?

I suggest narrow focus - just on the PzIV/Sherman/StuG pricing issue. No side/minor issues or issues where even we don't agree.

 

[Larsen]

I agree. Just the pricing of the three tanks - SuG, M4 and PzIV J (or whatever the cheapest is).

 

[Redwolf]

So are people happy with this basic wording as a start?

"In our opinion a basic 75mm Sherman, a basic PzIV long and a basic StuG long should roughly be priced the same.

As for changing the formula we feel that:
- the turret on the tanks is worth quite a bit, tactically, so the StuG should be discounted for the lack of it
- same for the additional MG and ammo loadout, they should count more in the favor of the tanks than they do right now
- although the PzIV has a better gun than the 75mm Sherman the 50mm front turret puts it right back into the same price class. The Firefly is also not getting as high a price raise for its better gun

We feel that the current pricing is getting in the way of both historically accurate force mixes (not enough StuGs) and also of general fairness between the sides. Pricing these three the same would improve both and lead to more even, realistic forces.
"

 

[Redwolf]

Maybe better not to mention the Firefly at all. Keep focus on the 3 basic versions.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Good draft. Maybe we should also suggest which price point these three vehicles should have, since we're suggesting they should cost about the same.

Should they be priced cheaply like the Sherman currently is, or expensively like the StuG? Or middle of the road: Like the Panzer IV?

Since these are basic tanks, pricing them higher would mean slightly less armour heavy games, which in my opinion would be good.

 

[Redwolf]

Good draft. Maybe we should also suggest which price point these three vehicles should have, since we're suggesting they should cost about the same.

Should they be priced cheaply like the Sherman currently is, or expensively like the StuG? Or middle of the road: Like the Panzer IV?

Since these are basic tanks, pricing them higher would mean slightly less armour heavy games, which in my opinion would be good.

Yes, of course we should mention the existing prices. Which game should we use for the reference numbers? CMBN as the base game? Or CMFB since that is supposed to get a module?

I would say pricing all of these at 225 points (right in the middle of the existing ones) sounds about right.

 

[Larsen]

I don't think we should mention Firefly. I think we should specify that we are talking about the base models for StuG, PzIV and M4. Pricing them at about 225-240 for single vehicle should be about right.
In fact i would argue that the prices for the rest of the armor for a particular side should be based on the comparison with these basic models (per side).
What mean is the price of Panther should be based on the comparison with PzIV and StuG and nothing else (2 Panthers or 3 Pz IVs or 1 Panther or 2 Pz IVs). Something like that.

 

[Redwolf]

In fact i would argue that the prices for the rest of the armor for a particular side should be based on the comparison with these basic models (per side).

Yes. What we are suggesting is an adjustment to the formula, not just janking individual prices. The new formula would then price the other tanks.

To name an example, the Panther would probably go up a bit since it has no armor weakness like the Pz IV, an awesome gun, a turret and 2 MGs. Exactly what we mention above as pricing factors.

 

[A Canadian Cat]

Yes. What we are suggesting is an adjustment to the formula, not just janking individual prices. The new formula would then price the other tanks.

To name an example, the Panther would probably go up a bit since it has no armor weakness like the Pz IV, an awesome gun, a turret and 2 MGs. Exactly what we mention above as pricing factors.

I don't spend a lot of time messing with point values but the idea that there is a formula that shifts all tanks relative to one another is new to me. Have BFC ever officially confirmed that? I realize that lots of ideas get turned into myth and taken as gospel so unless someone can point to a post by Steve or Charles and maybe Elivs that says the game uses a formula to dynamically price equipment I would be very explicit about what you think should change. Even if there is a formula that produces prices during development that absolutely does not mean its used at run time as well.

 

[Redwolf]

I don't spend a lot of time messing with point values but the idea that there is a formula that shifts all tanks relative to one another is new to me. Have BFC ever officially confirmed that? I realize that lots of ideas get turned into myth and taken as gospel so unless someone can point to a post by Steve or Charles and maybe Elivs that says the game uses a formula to dynamically price equipment I would be very explicit about what you think should change. Even if there is a formula that produces prices during development that absolutely does not mean its used at run time as well.

There certainly is some amount of individual price adjustments, that happened on some patches for some units. Probably some base-setting by hand between different arms branches and the like.

In the end it doesn't matter to us when we suggest the base tank adjustment.

 

[Gorst]

I don't spend a lot of time messing with point values but the idea that there is a formula that shifts all tanks relative to one another is new to me. Have BFC ever officially confirmed that?

Not for CM2. BFC have said practically nothing about QB prices in CM2. But back in the early days of CM1 when Steve would play multiplayer QBs in his spare time for fun he was quite explicit about the formula thing. While that doesn't necessarily mean the same is true in CM2 it is interesting that there were extensive changes made to QB prices in Fire and Rubble. Soviet tanks were increased in price by about 9% across the board. German tanks went up by a little over 2%, but only for vehicles over 250 pts. Why? I have no idea. It's an undocumented change. The point is I feel it very unlikely Charles went though each individual vehicle.

 

[Gorst]

I don't think we should mention Firefly. I think we should specify that we are talking about the base models for StuG, PzIV and M4. Pricing them at about 225-240 for single vehicle should be about right.

Increasing the price of the base Sherman would presumably cause inflation across the Sherman line (at least). If the base Sherman goes from 190 to 230 the bog standard Sherman 76 could be near 300 points.

 

[Redwolf]

Increasing the price of the base Sherman would presumably cause inflation across the Sherman line (at least). If the base Sherman goes from 190 to 230 the bog standard Sherman 76 could be near 300 points.

Around 290. So less than a StuG right now. The 76 is always a (W) variant.

Except in CMFB where Shermans are even cheaper than in the other games. The Jumbo Shermans are under 300. That would all benefit from our suggested adjustment.

 

[Bulletpoint]

To name an example, the Panther would probably go up a bit since it has no armor weakness like the Pz IV, an awesome gun, a turret and 2 MGs. Exactly what we mention above as pricing factors.

As someone who likes playing the Germans, I'd be fine with the Panther becoming more expensive. I always felt the basic workhorse vehicles should be more common in battles, and tanks like Panthers and Tigers more rare.

 

[Gorst]

Around 290. So less than a StuG right now. The 76 is always a (W) variant.

296, to be exact.

Except in CMFB where Shermans are even cheaper than in the other games. The Jumbo Shermans are under 300. That would all benefit from our suggested adjustment.

Shermans are the same price in all the WW2 games except Red Thunder.

 

[Redwolf]

296, to be exact.

Shermans are the same price in all the WW2 games except Red Thunder.

I must have looked at the wrong thing, you are right.

But generally, are you happy with what is being proposed here (no mention on Fireflies and 76s in the petition, just let those adjust naturally)?

 

[Gorst]

But generally, are you happy with what is being proposed here (no mention on Fireflies and 76s in the petition, just let those adjust naturally)?

Having Sherman 76s costing 50 points more than a Pz IV is hard for me to justify although it wouldn't be the end of the world if they did. I'd have to see a complete list of unit prices to know what to think.

 

[SlySniper]

I think you are going about this the wrong way, trying to get BF to the adjust the pricing is somewhat fine if it happens, but its always a matter of opinion on how the values should be based.

I think what is needed is that BF adds a feature to allow the user to adjust the pricing in his game as he wishes.

Thus, you could tweek to your hearts content and you and only those you play against need to come to a agreement of what is wanted.

BF could keep what they feel is correct and is a default option.

But those hosting tournament s and such could use their own systems if so desired.