L
Larsen
Guest
Hetzer is a very different animal from StuG from my perspective. It is truly a TD with very limited anti infantry capability (even more so that StuG judging from my memory). But their front armor is quite capable. While StuGs can be penetrated by regular 75mm US gun at below 600 meters.
That it is, the Hetzer from memory is based off the Czechoslovakian Panzer 38 chassis ..anyway its front hull had a hell of a slope on it and as you said its a true TD...Stugg is based on MK4 Chasis but without a turret it was much easier to produce and the could make bigger numbers more quickly, Hence why its over priced
L
Larsen
Guest
You keep mixing the unit price with its rarity cost. Those two are completely different. The unit cost does not take into consideration anything but comparative value fo the units int eh game. The rarity cost reflects the historical availability fo the unit in certain period of time. Those two are completely unrelated. You can turn the rarity off completely if you want. Playing the game with only historically available units is just one way of playing this great game.
Last edited by a moderator:
The main disadvantage of the Hetzer is that side and rear are vulnerable to .50 cal fire. If you fight Americans that can make quite a difference.
Having a turret was clearly overpriced in CMx1. When making the CMx2 formula BFC went overboard and made turrets too cheap (almost free it seems).
This is a core issue, apart from the overpriced StuG,
While the Pz IV long gun is a bit better at AP performance its HE round is less useful. And the 50mm thin front turret armor should lead to a substantial discount - but does not.
Same price would be about right overall. And StuG, too. All three should cost the same as a base adjustment point.
L
Larsen
Guest
Totally agree. Of course there are variations of Shermans, Pz IVs and StuGs and those have to be a bit different from the base models if they offer upgrades. As for the base models - M4, Mk IVJ early and StuG III should all in my opinion cost about the same.
And differences between M4/M4A1 and M4A3(W)75? Right now the first two are about ~50 points cheaper than the PzIV H, but the M4A3(W)75 is about ~15points cheaper than the PzIV H.
I don't really have an issue with that from a QB playability perspective, because it's not like you can choose between the PzIV or a Sherman. Although I agree that the ~50 point difference on the M4/M4A and the PzIV H / J is on the high side. Perhaps there shouldn't be that big of a difference between the M4/M4A1 and the M4A3, the capability gap being not that big (similar armor and gun). That would automatically bring the cheapest Sherman closer to the PzIV, which seems to be the issue experienced.
Never played CM1, but having a turret does seem free indeed.
I went ahead and made a selection of all 75mm KwK40 equipped armour in CMFB (all regular/normal/fit/0 leadership
And the 75mm KwK42:
88mm+
And US
75mm:
76mm
90mm
Also here all reg/normal/fit/0 (unless I made screwups lol). Also I cropped out the rarity cost to keep it clear.
75mm:
76mm
90mm
Also here all reg/normal/fit/0 (unless I made screwups lol). Also I cropped out the rarity cost to keep it clear.
I think next QB I will go for Hellcats 
Any veteran gamer willing to create printable army lists with revised point values? Then gamers can choose their forces from those lists at a certain points total and ignore the CM internal points system. It is something that is done in my miniature wargaming circles.
That would take the Q out of the QB ;-)
I believe the Marders use Pak 40 though?
yes I think you're correct; it's a different gun. Although you could say it's performance is much more close to the KwK40 than the KwK42.
I think the most interesting comparison is between the Panther and the JPz IV 70(V). The Panther is better armored (although a larger profile) and has the same gun. It also has a turret. But they cost the same. I feel the Jagdpanther is also quite expensive compared to the King Tiger. Imo the Jagpanther should be more on the level of the Panther. It has a better gun, but a lot less flexibility.
The same could be said for the Stug / Hetzer/ JPzIVs vs the Pz IV. Even the early JPz IV costs ~130% the price of a PzIV J.
Does a early JPz IV have 1.3 times the combat power of a Pz IV?
The same could be said for the Stug / Hetzer/ JPzIVs vs the Pz IV. Even the early JPz IV costs ~130% the price of a PzIV J.
Does a early JPz IV have 1.3 times the combat power of a Pz IV?
Last edited:
With the problem being that in QB's, which are a staple for H2H play, a group of otherwise very fine and interesting vehicles in CM are barely be selected (unless for handicaps) simply due to the fact that their combat power/point value is significantly less than other choices in the same roster. Mainly Stug/JPzIV/JPzIV70/Hetzer vs PzIV/Panther, although same could be said about Jagdpanther vs Kingtiger.
And perhaps the best argument with regards to the Shermans would be that the M4/M4A1/M4A3 are too cheap compared to the M4A3(W)75. The improvements (wet stowage, some extra smokes & ammo mainly) don't add much combat power for QBs, but come at a ~20% premium compared to the M4A3.
I'm OK with that particular one because of the 50mm front turret armor on the Pz IV. Against a 75mm Sherman that makes a huge difference.
Of course both Pz IV and JPz IV are overpriced compared to the Sherman.