Regular British/Commonwealth Infantry

Lethaface said:
Churchill, it sure has it's place imo. Compared to the Sherman it can take much more of a beating.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with this. I'm no expert on it, but as far as I can see from Wikipedia and the in-game performance, most models of Churchills don't seem more protected than a Sherman. It's only the Churchill VII that has really thick armour, and that's 290 points, where a Tiger costs 300 if I'm not mistaken.

Also the Sherman is faster and seems to spot better. And you get a 75mm gun instead of the little 57mm popgun on the Churchill.
 
I don't think the Tiger's points cost are relevant in this case, although I'm also not saying the points are 'correct'.

From my experience in CMx2 the Churchill can be quite the beast to tackle. The Sherman less so, although there's many different versions for both tanks. Imo it excels more as a 'infantry support' tank, like Domfluff said. Haven't played with m in a long time though.
 
Lethaface said:
I don't think the Tiger's points cost are relevant in this case, although I'm also not saying the points are 'correct'.
Click to expand...

I think the points are supposed to reflect the combat power of the asset. So it should be possible to compare apples with apples...
 
Bulletpoint said:
I think the points are supposed to reflect the combat power of the asset. So it should be possible to compare apples with apples...
Click to expand...
But you can't choose the Tiger instead of a Churchill or Sherman. So, the point discussion is a different one compared to the one about the choice between a Sherman or a Churchill.
 
Lethaface said:
But you can't choose the Tiger instead of a Churchill or Sherman. So, the point discussion is a different one compared to the one about the choice between a Sherman or a Churchill.
Click to expand...

Alright, that is true enough. But from a balance point of view, your German opponent can indeed choose the tiger. The Brit tanks should be cheaper to make up for their lack of quality, I think.

Also, it's a matter of the Brit tanks not seeing action, because why would you ever go for a Churchill when you can get a cheaper Sherman. That's a pity. I prefer the points cost balanced so that each asset is viable.

The same goes for many other units in the game. I'd never buy a Panzer IV because I can get a Panther for not that many more points. If the PzIV were cheaper, I'd choose that sometimes.
 
Bulletpoint said:
Alright, that is true enough. But from a balance point of view, your German opponent can indeed choose the tiger. The Brit tanks should be cheaper to make up for their lack of quality, I think.
Click to expand...

I don't even try to go compare the points between nations. Perhaps UK infantry or whatever is cheaper relatively. Imo the points are just awarded based on some educated guess type of system. So, it's always going to be debatable whether relative points are correct. I do agree that a Tiger would be worth more points in my book compared to most Churchills.

Bulletpoint said:
Alright, that is true enough. But from a balance point of view, your German opponent can indeed choose the tiger. The Brit tanks should be cheaper to make up for their lack of quality, I think.

Also, it's a matter of the Brit tanks not seeing action, because why would you ever go for a Churchill when you can get a cheaper Sherman. That's a pity. I prefer the points cost balanced so that each asset is viable.

The same goes for many other units in the game. I'd never buy a Panzer IV because I can get a Panther for not that many more points. If the PzIV were cheaper, I'd choose that sometimes.
Click to expand...

Which is why I like to play scenario's: you get a force and got to make due with it. Another thing of QBs is that with normal rarity there are the usual suspects with you will usually see, which is realistic but there are many more different vehicles available.

Also, a Panther is just the better vehicle compared to the Pz IV, however there will be a line at which people prefer buying 2 Pz IVs over 1 Panther. All depending on circumstances, so it's impossible to get the points balanced 'right' without unrealistically altering performance, imo. It might even be theoretically impossible to get points that will mean equal balance in all situations. I think it is.

The same goes for Churchill's against Tigers, that's not really a fight you want to pick with most Churchills or Shermans for that matter. The 17pounders or 76mm's are a better choice, but in some situations an Archer or some Bazooka teams might be worth much more.

Edit: In an ideal world they would have a neural network improving points valuation based off actual combat encounters being simulated in each CMx2 instance on the globe. Perhaps Steam can gives us that ;-)
 
I just checked up on the numbers in the QB screen, and I have to admit I remembered some numbers wrong. In fairness, a Tiger I doesn't cost 300 points - it costs around 370 depending on version. So the British Churchill VII is in fact somewhat cheaper at 293 points. Also, the model VII is where you get a 75mm gun. So there's that.

However, I still think there are many pricing oddities. Here's an example I am sure of, because I have it on screen right now:

A Stuart III Recce costs 110 points. It's a Stuart without a turret, only armed with a .50 cal.

You could also pay 101 points and get a Stuart V. That one comes not only with a turret, but with a whopping 174 shells.

So unless there's something I'm overlooking, the Recce version should be much cheaper than the version V. But it's actually more expensive.
 
I'm actually finding it hard to see a formation that uses it, it only seems to be on the single vehicles tab - none of the various recce formations or recce platoons in armoured formations seem to use them. I assume this was mostly out of service in the period - it doesn't seem to appear in CMFI July 1943 either.

In terms of "what you're missing"? Replacing the turret with a .50 cal will reduce weight and increase the vehicle's speed and off-road ability significantly. The recce also adds an additional crewman and is open-topped, which will help with spotting. That will help with performing it's intended task (i.e., reconnaissance), and this should be a better dedicated recon vehicle than the Stuart V. The Stuart V is also a fair bit chunkier, which isn't typically great in a scout.

Obviously you then run into the problems that all recce vehicles have in CM, which is to say that most scenarios and maps are not built for them, and they don't often get the chance to be useful.

Now, points-wise (with rarity) these are listed as:

Stuart III 110 (330)
Stuart VI 110 (330)
Stuart V 95 (285)
Stuart III Recce 104 (312)

It does seem odd that the V gets a cost-break. The V has the most ammunition, the VI gains an MG, and the III has the second best off-road ability to the III Recce.
 
Naturally, this demonstrates the fundamental issues with any points-buy system - what are you actually evaluating? Clearly putting the III Recce in a fight to the death against a Stuart V, the V will win, but then that's true for (for example) anything fighting a Forward Observer or random HQ unit, who are incredibly valuable, but not for their fighting capabilities.
 
domfluff said:
Naturally, this demonstrates the fundamental issues with any points-buy system - what are you actually evaluating? Clearly putting the III Recce in a fight to the death against a Stuart V, the V will win, but then that's true for (for example) anything fighting a Forward Observer or random HQ unit, who are incredibly valuable, but not for their fighting capabilities.
Click to expand...

I think basically the question is: How much will this unit help you win the battle? HQ's help you with that, indirectly. An artillery spotter helps. A big tank helps.

The Stuart Recce might have made sense in the real war, but you're likely not choosing not paying 110 points in this game only to have a vehicle that drives a bit faster and is slightly less likely to get stuck in the mud.

I agree that assigning points values to units can be tricky. A Tiger on an open map is WAY better than a Tiger trapped in a bocage labyrinth. But both will cost you the same amount of points.
 
Yup, likewise, the real value of an FO will depend on the artillery taken - you could take none and it would still cost the same amount.

Reconnaissance is still really important in CM, so I don't think it has zero value. I won't claim that this is correctly costed (or even that I have an idea what "correct" could be here, since it's likely always going to be arbitrary), but it *is* a better vehicle for actually getting into position and spotting the enemy. It's also worse for dealing with opposing recce screens, naturally.

In general, I've never been entirely happy with the idea of CM as a competitive exercise as published - it seems like it always needs some level of house rules to be playable in that regard, including things like using blind scenarios when tournaments are run here - so discussion of the balance of the points-buy system seems doomed to failure before you start really.
 
I think the funniest/weirdest pricing decision is US strafing aircraft actually... Some 32 points gets you an attack aircraft. Yes, it "only" has .50 cal, but still. It can shut down any of the many German halftrack based vehicles. And AA is nearly completely ineffective against them.

When most players agree to not use any aircraft, I think that's a pretty good sign something is not right with your points pricing :unsure:
 
domfluff said:
so discussion of the balance of the points-buy system seems doomed to failure before you start really.
Click to expand...

I'm not really arguing in a combative way... just having friendly discussion with like-minded people :)
 
Oh, that wasn't meant to be spikey, I'm just not really sure how useful it actually is as a discussion - other than for the purpose of spotting min-maxing opportunities and/or exploits (especially notable if something is woefully undercosted).
 
domfluff said:
In general, I've never been entirely happy with the idea of CM as a competitive exercise as published - it seems like it always needs some level of house rules to be playable in that regard
Click to expand...

I agree. A good CM game between players with the same attitude can be a great contest, but there are too many design, balance and pricing oddities to really make it into an E-sports game, I feel. And maybe that's also one of the reasons why I personally never got into the entire ladder thing.

Currently, I'm noticing some things that could be exploited.. but as long as I only play friendly competitive games, I don't have to exploit those things. Or combing through the OOBs obsessively to find the best min/max opportunities. I'd like to keep it that way.

No offense to anyone playing ladder games.
 
And seems I managed to get this thread wildly off topic.

Back on track: I think CW Infantry is not useless, but not very good either. Then again, in CM, games are rarely decided by infantry as much as AFVs and other support weapons.
 
CW infantry are really poor in the firepower department. I assume that's accurate so I'm not complaining. But recently I had a 10-man squad end up in a firefight with three Germans (who, as ever, had an MP40 and an MG42). Outnumbering them over 3:1 (they were spread across two floors of a building so everyone had LOS) I assumed we had superior firepower and left them to it. Two minutes later the British squad had been wiped out to one German casualty.

What does that tell me? I can't play the Brits like I play anyone else. As it happens they nearly always turn up with a huge amount of artillery that's accurate and quick. So I fling artillery about with gay abandon and send the boys in after to take what's left of the objective.

That's not always the most fun way of playing CM but it's probably a pretty accurate way of playing the Brits.

A lot depends on the scenario design.

*SPOILERS* I finally got kicked out of the Scottish Corridor after the Nowhere to Hide scenario. It was a draw with high casualties on both sides. But checking who got the kills afterwards, about 90% of both sides casualties were caused by artillery! Including most of the tank kills! The Germans had rather a lot of artillery too and my FOs performed well so the result was that each sides infantry hardly saw each other and not many shots were fired. Interesting game but I'm not sure I want to play too many like that.

But sometimes playing the Brits is a blast with their carriers and low ammunition expenditure (a curious quirk of the lack of firepower). Depends what you're asked to do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
John1966 said:
As it happens they nearly always turn up with a huge amount of artillery that's accurate and quick.
Click to expand...

Is Brit arty really quicker and more accurate than the German and US artillery? I haven't done any tests, but it just seems to me from playing Scottish Corridor a couple of times that I don't notice any difference.
 
Bulletpoint said:
Is Brit arty really quicker and more accurate than the German and US artillery?
Click to expand...

I haven't checked either but that's my impression. An FO with a TRP can have a 2 minute arrival time for the 81mm stuff. Is that usual with others? I've been away from CM for a while but I don't remember getting call times that short before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom