StuGs

Larsen said:
I am glad that we agree that StuGs are not just overpriced, they hugely overpriced to the point that it looks like a bug.
Click to expand...
I agree that StuGs are significantly overpriced, but not to the point where it's a bug. Then they'd cost 80 points instead of 280 points because somebody made a typo. Just like with rocket artillery some years back, or, arguably, with the US aircraft prices.

To me, it doesn't seem a bug, just poor design.
 
Couldn't agree more.

Current pricing really has a few rough points. Apart from Stug, Pz IV and Sherman as mentioned:
- King Tiger. Buy 7 StuGs or 5 KTs
- unarmored FlaK vehicles (halftracks) way too cheap
 
Larsen said:
There are other aspects - HE load and blast,number of MGs and the ammo for them, tank speed, turret and turret speed, the chance to bog down etc.
Click to expand...

What you describe there was the CMx1 pricing scheme. The factors you list weighted heavily in CMx1 but no longer so in CMx2. Clearly the goal was overshot in the change.
 
Redwolf said:
- unarmored FlaK vehicles (halftracks) way too cheap
Click to expand...
Especially when you consider that some of them are actually better assault guns than actual assault guns - due to the sometimes wonky way CM works, firing a torrent of 37mm against a building is more effective than firing a couple of 75mm or 105mm shells.
 
I recently found out that the US 37mm AA halftruck is absolutely the best gun to destroy buildings. It han level a 3 story building in under 1 minute. It takes a few minutes for a 75mm gun to achieve the same result.
 
Bulletpoint said:
Especially when you consider that some of them are actually better assault guns than actual assault guns - due to the sometimes wonky way CM works, firing a torrent of 37mm against a building is more effective than firing a couple of 75mm or 105mm shells.
Click to expand...

Low blast value HE (to use a CMx1 term, aka small caliber) is very effective in CMx2.

A bunch of 60mm mortars can do terrible damage to a battalion. While I can't judge whether that is realistic as such, I do think that makes small artillery like that underpriced compared to larger artillery.
 
With small caliber mortars their effectiveness comes from 4 factors:
1. MG fire does not effectively suppress them
2. Their accuracy are off the charts. I am not sure if that is realistic or not. They zero on in 2-3 shot and keep hitting the sweet spot after that.
3. The way morale is simulated makes platoons ineffective once they take a few casualties. Since the mortars are super accurate and hard to suppress they tend to inflict casualties after which platoons become very much infective.
4. It takes ages for the indirect fire mortars to start firing. In fact I don't understand why in a direct fire mode mortars star shooting sporting rounds right away while in indirect mode it takes them from!3 to 5 minutes to start landing spotting rounds.

I believe that deleting all MGs from the formations and replacing them with low caliber mortars and AA halftruck is the way to go in QBs.

I tend to think that from a simulation stand point CM1 was a better game. The only big thing that CM2 made better is removing the Borg spotting. Everything else was more thought of in CM1.
 
You can buy off-map 60mm mortars that wreak havoc, too. Slow targeting, but good effect. Cost is 51 purchase points for 3 tubes with 135 rounds of ammo. Underpriced for the HE effect they currently do.
 
By the way, regarding the low caliber mortars - they are a part of formations for allies and thus come at 10-15% discount. For Germans they are listed with 0 rarity but are not a part of any formation - at least I could not find any.
It is hard to believe that they were regimental assets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like the Stug because it's a great looking armoured vehicle and it performs well if you use it carefully. I usually don't use the Panzer VI and King VI.
 
You got me here. I can't argue that StuGs look cool.
Now when you say they perform well - what do you mean? Is that against humans?
 
Redwolf said:
Low blast value HE (to use a CMx1 term, aka small caliber) is very effective in CMx2.

A bunch of 60mm mortars can do terrible damage to a battalion. While I can't judge whether that is realistic as such, I do think that makes small artillery like that underpriced compared to larger artillery.
Click to expand...

Redwolf said:
You can buy off-map 60mm mortars that wreak havoc, too. Slow targeting, but good effect. Cost is 51 purchase points for 3 tubes with 135 rounds of ammo. Underpriced for the HE effect they currently do.
Click to expand...

Until recently, the US off-map 60mm mortar artillery cost about 32 points.
It was quietly patched though, so now it costs ... 51 points. Still a bargain.
 
Last edited:
About StuGs again, I think maybe part of the reason they are mispriced is that their price point was set back in CMBN. Back then, the StuG was worth more, because there were fewer powerful Allied AT-guns (no Fireflies or Jacksons), and fewer alternatives (No King Tigers, Hetzers, Panzer IV 70 etc) as these were added later in expansions.

I also think that Shermans in CMBN fire regular AP, which the StuG can resist quite well, while in CMFB, Shermans fire late-war ammo APCBC which penetrates the StuG. But this is partly guesswork.

If you want to see Shermans VS a StuG without setting up a test in the editor, you can load up the CMFB scenario Battle for Chaumont First Round. it starts with five Shermans VS a StuG at long range.
 
Larsen said:
By the way, do you know if spotting is different for different tanks?
Click to expand...
It is different, especially when buttoned up.
It is difficult to measure and visualize in a way allowing people to readily see the difference, so I came up with a single figure I call "spotting rating". I won't go into details right here on how I calculate it, but if you trust me that it is a relative measure of probability of spotting something in front of the tank between 200 and 1400 meters, then I can give you the following numbers:

Opened up:
Pz IVH (late) - 100 (reference tank)
Pz VD (late) - 104
Pz VA (mid) - 109
M4 (late) - 110

Buttoned up:
Pz IVH (late) - 28
Pz VD (late) - 29
Pz VA (mid) - 39
M4 (late) - 35

Each number is backed up by 70,000 tests in total across the different ranges and takes about 50 hours of running the game to produce... so more will be coming, but slowly :)
 
Those are very interesting numbers. Would you know of there is a difference between early and late models of Pz IV? Also the same question is for the cheapest M4 and late models.
Also do you know if StuGs spot about the same as Pz IVs or worse or better?
 
Oh dear, another nail in the coffin for the Panzer IV... now also with worse spotting than the Sherman. An overpriced lemon.
 
Larsen said:
Those are very interesting numbers. Would you know of there is a difference between early and late models of Pz IV? Also the same question is for the cheapest M4 and late models.
Also do you know if StuGs spot about the same as Pz IVs or worse or better?
Click to expand...
That was all I have tested to date, but here's what I think:
  • I don't even plan to test Pz IVH (early) and Pz IVJ. These do not differ from Pz IVH (late) in any way that could affect spotting.
  • Pz IVG could be different because it has vision ports for the driver and the radio operator in the hull sides. These vision ports are deleted in the H and J models because they would be obstructed by armor skirts. This might affect spotting to the sides, which does not change my "spotting rating". In summary, all Pz IVs should have pretty much the same spotting ability ahead.
  • For Shermans, I expect better spotting for the later models with a cupola - especially when buttoned up. That's M4A3(75)W mid and all 76mm Shermans (not Fireflies - these will have to be tested separately).
  • The difference between Panther D and A (A should be the same as G) is due to an improved cupola design and an added periscope for the loader.
  • I can't say anything at all about StuGs yet.
Note - I only have CMBN and CMRT.
 
Bulletpoint said:
Oh dear, another nail in the coffin for the Panzer IV... now also with worse spotting than the Sherman. An overpriced lemon.
Click to expand...
Yes - I kind of expected the result after my initial test duels between a Pz IV and a Sherman at 600 m. The Sherman was mostly winning, I just wasn't sure if it was only because of its good upper hull protection or also because of better spotting.
 
So basically your tests show that all Shermans should be more expensive than they are especially M4 models. And that there is no reason why Pz iV should be 35+ points more expensive than M4.
 
Larsen said:
So basically your tests show that all Shermans should be more expensive than they are especially M4 models. And that there is no reason why Pz iV should be 35+ points more expensive than M4.
Click to expand...
I agree with the statement that Shermans are priced too low compared to the Pz IV. I just don't want to say that the tests show it - the tests only show what they show. Pricing does not need to be tied exclusively to performance in duels.

The duels were run at 600 m, both sides partial hull down, 1000 duels.
M4 Sherman (mid) vs Pz IVG (late): 428:300
M4A3(75)W (early) vs Pz IVH (late): 504:265
If one side was damaged and disengaged, then nobody got a win, hence they don't add up to 1000.
https://community.battlefront.com/t...-battles/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-1844387
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom