StuGs

[Drifter Man]

The points cost for each piece of equipment is meant to represent it's combat power and nothing else.

That's what I thought it was until I found this (in CMBN):
Typhoon IB [strafe] ... 92 points
Fw 190A-8 [strafe] ... 259 points

These two planes have similar armament (the Fw 190 has an extra pair of machineguns that last for a few more strafing runs but do little damage). Why is a Fw 190 2.8x more valuable than a Typhoon?

 

[Gorst]

Yeah I agree that the variety one usually sees in QBs is very limited. Panthers are almost a given, etc. Although one way to change that up a bit is to go for loose rarity.

Does anyone use Fionn's Rules anymore? I bet you'd see some StuGs in "Short 75" Rules games.

I can't remember exactly the differences between the most basic Sherman and the M4A3(75)W, but IIRC it has better armor, optics, mobility and of course the wet storage.

Better armor quality, better equilalent armor thickness on upper and lower hull. Especially the lower hull which IIRC is something like twice as thick on later model Shermans compared to early models.

The only real issue I see is that the turret-less vehicles don't seem to be cheaper than the turreted vehicles. For example a hellcat costs about 150point, while a Marder has a similar price point. A JagdPz IV 70 (V) isn't cheaper compared to a Panther. Worst off from this list is probably the Stug, I reckon that is because it has quite decent side armor which are also valued poitns. So it is even more expensive than a Hetzer, although not by much.

Gun and armor uber alles. All other factors count for little in QB pricing. On most WW2 tanks the turrets have less armor than the upper hull while turretless vehicles usually have about the same armor on the superstructure as the upper hull, which cancels out whatever small discount the lack of turret counts for.

 

[Gorst]

The points cost for each piece of equipment is meant to represent it's combat power and nothing else. It is chosen by Steve and Charles with some input form testers. They try to make a reasonable assessment about how much better gun A is than gun B etc. Points are for game play balance. That is what they are meant for and what the represent. BFC's stated policy is to never change those values. Ever. Period. With the exception of when there is a bug - like they meant something to be worth 65 points but it ended up shipping as 35 (not a real example just made up numbers to illustrate).

I don't think Steve has publicly stated the reason for the "no changing values policy", and I don't really know, but I think we can all guess that he has little interest in engaging in debates about how such and such should be cheaper or more expensive and on and on and on. The fact is that even if the values are not perfect they serve their purpose and do a really good job overall. There are so many things that govern the outcome of a QB and points values are really low on the list even though we wold prefer that our own tactical competence not be at the top - honestly it is. I cannot count the number of times I have made a decision and then regretted it. That's on me. I have also bought too much artillery, or tanks for infantry and not have enough infantry or enough tanks for how the game played out. Those are not points problems those are me problems.

In ancient times when the Earth was still cooling and CM1 was a newborn baby Steve would engage in lengthy and shall we say "spirited" debates on the QB pricing of all sorts of different units. At some point he grew weary and I think a bit cynical about the whole subject and swore off wasting any more time debating it.

 

[Gorst]

And what all this does is make the German Purchase generally very predictable for the allied player...only thing is how many. And the gameplay behaves in a predictable way with the allied player dancing around panthers. Still lots of fun and scope on how to take them on, but games would have a lot more flavour to them if some of these costs where revisted by battlefront and adjusted. I personally would be a Big fan of some of the TD's i would like to buy Hetzers and Stuggs more regulary plus having a jadgpanther would be lots of fun...But at around they 400 point mark, why would you. Might as well get a KT..that is another case where its to dear, got no issue with the high rarity factors of some of these more exotic vehicles just the purchase price is out of whac

Jadgpanthers are worth every point. Panther armor without the vulnerable turret plus the KT's cannon. Beastly. I do agree KTs are a bit too cheap, although British 17 pdr APDS is a real threat to them.

I'm not sure I agree that German purchases are so predictable. At least I don't think they should be. Panzer IVs make for a tempting quantity strategy if you expect the Allied player to load up on Panther killers, and they kill Fireflies just as well.

 

[Gorst]

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.

Panther A turret: ~98mm equivalent resistance vs 76mm APCBC
JPz IV 70(V) superstructure: 170mm equivalent resistance vs 76mm APCBC

 

[Gorst]

That's what I thought it was until I found this (in CMBN):
Typhoon IB [strafe] ... 92 points
Fw 190A-8 [strafe] ... 259 points

These two planes have similar armament (the Fw 190 has an extra pair of machineguns that last for a few more strafing runs but do little damage). Why is a Fw 190 2.8x more valuable than a Typhoon?

That is in BFCs bug tracker. Doesn't mean it is a bug, or that anything will come of it, but it is weird.

 

[Gorst]

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.

As @Lethaface has alluded to, the problem you run into is what to do with all the other Shermans. If the StuG and PzIV are set equal to the cheapest Sherman then a Sherman M4A3 75(W) is 20% more expensive than a Pz IV and a Sherman 76 is 30% more. In Red Thunder a T-34/85 would be 37% more than a Pz IV.

In actuality, since QB unit prices are set using formulas rather than whatever value Charles thinks each unit is worth, these changes would have cascading effects thoughout the whole QB vehicle list.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I'm not sure I agree that German purchases are so predictable. At least I don't think they should be. Panzer IVs make for a tempting quantity strategy if you expect the Allied player to load up on Panther killers, and they kill Fireflies just as well.

Not really, since the panzer IV and the firefly cost about the same, if I remember right. PZ IV is neither a value play nor a quality unit. All the allied player needs to do is to go for as many Shermans and fireflies as he can buy for his points. They will take care of any tank the German player can field.

 

[Lethaface]

Panther A turret: ~98mm equivalent resistance vs 76mm APCBC
JPz IV 70(V) superstructure: 170mm equivalent resistance vs 76mm APCBC

Yeah but the Panther hull The turret is indeed a weak point armor wise; but the JPz doesn't even have one.
Anyway I guess the main question is how much to account for the turret.

In long distance shooting from hull down / keyhole positions the JPz does have some advantages over the Panther protection wise. But usually at least my tanks make good use of their mobility and are shooting & scooting and changing positions all the time. Their strength is in their mobility and without a rotating turret a lot of the flexibility is lost, which make manoeuvring with the casemated vehicles (much) more risky especially close to the frontline.

So in the end because of the lost flexibility and opportunity costs the casemated vehicles just don't give the value at the same price imo. In a large/huge battle where it's not a choice between one or the other and with some long sightlines I might go for JPz or something to man some keyhole positions / overwatch
Still it's a bit of a glorfied AT gun placed inside a tracked bunker/casemate..

 

[Titan]

In actuality, since QB unit prices are set using formulas rather than whatever value Charles thinks each unit is worth, these changes would have cascading effects thoughout the whole QB vehicle list.

Not really, Whilst we can pick holes in everything i generally think everything is close enough and is price justfly to be ok, the Glaring issue here is German TD cost being far to high...there is no way for a Stugg or hetzer being priced so high..benchmark off the MK4. Even when you read historical production notes it clearly states towards the latter part of the War the Germans favoured the Stugg etc because it was cheaper to build and easier to build and they built a shitload of them in the last few years. So to me it is as clear as mud when compared to all the other ordinance that the whole German line up of TDs is at a Minium 30% over valued on a bad day!!. Without pixel peeping everything else is close enough, other than the marder which i think is ok.

 

[Gorst]

Not really, since the panzer IV and the firefly cost about the same, if I remember right. PZ IV is neither a value play nor a quality unit. All the allied player needs to do is to go for as many Shermans and fireflies as he can buy for his points. They will take care of any tank the German player can field.

Yes, Panzer IV and Fireflies are about the same price, but the choice for the German player is not between the Pz IV and the Firefly, it's between Pz IV and StuG and Panther (mainly, taking rarity into account). Given the prices of those units I would consider the Pz IV a valid quantity choice.

While I agree that Fireflies are the safest choice for a British player Churchill VIIs are only a little more expensive and are very tough nuts to crack, even for Panthers.

 

[Gorst]

Not really, Whilst we can pick holes in everything i generally think everything is close enough and is price justfly to be ok, the Glaring issue here is German TD cost being far to high...there is no way for a Stugg or hetzer being priced so high..benchmark off the MK4. Even when you read historical production notes it clearly states towards the latter part of the War the Germans favoured the Stugg etc because it was cheaper to build and easier to build and they built a shitload of them in the last few years. So to me it is as clear as mud when compared to all the other ordinance that the whole German line up of TDs is at a Minium 30% over valued on a bad day!!. Without pixel peeping everything else is close enough, other than the marder which i think is ok.

But that's what I'm saying. If you give all German TDs a 30% discount the Jagdtiger would cost 300 points, about what a StuG now costs and 70 pts cheaper than a Panther.

 

[Lethaface]

15% for not having turret would go a long way

 

[Gorst]

15% for not having turret would go a long way

I don't know, but I suspect there is already a penalty for no turret. I think it just gets swamped by the extra armor TDs have. In CM1 stuff like turrets and ammo count and ground pressure counted for a big chunk of a unit's price. In CM2 all that stuff combined might be 15%. The rest is all gun and armor.

 

[Titan]

But that's what I'm saying. If you give all German TDs a 30% discount the Jagdtiger would cost 300 points, about what a StuG now costs and 70 pts cheaper than a Panther.

15% for not having turret would go a long way

Not sure about your maths...15% goes no where, a MK4 is a tad under 250 a stugg 300, 30% less makes the stugg around 210..thats where it should be in relation to MK4 15% makes it the same as MK4. Very little point buying a Stugg. I think some exotic stuff like the Jagdtiger a little commonsense needs to be allowed for. Im not say30% across the board for TD..but certainly for all the mainstream variants...Even jagdpanther could come back. At 390 when did you last buy one in a QB? what would it need to be for it to be a prospect, If the Stuggs where 210 well then i think we would find they would start coming up in AARs and QB games..You almost never see them. Same with everything else

 

[Titan]

I don't know, but I suspect there is already a penalty for no turret. I think it just gets swamped by the extra armor TDs have. In CM1 stuff like turrets and ammo count and ground pressure counted for a big chunk of a unit's price. In CM2 all that stuff combined might be 15%. The rest is all gun and armor.

There are a lot of smart people in TFGM that play this, I think there is plenty of evidence in the AARs and games that it is extremley rare for players to buy Stuggs unless you are luftwaffe or something when you have no other choice. That says alot

 

[Gorst]

There are a lot of smart people in TFGM that play this, I think there is plenty of evidence in the AARs and games that it is extremley rare for players to buy Stuggs unless you are luftwaffe or something when you have no other choice. That says alot

Oh come on, we all know there are no smart people at TFGM

It sounds like Panzer IVs aren't exactly popular either. Is it really all Panthers all the time?

On a related note, does anyone ever buy Sherman 75s? If Panthers are a given that would seem a bad idea.

Not sure about your maths...15% goes no where, a MK4 is a tad under 250 a stugg 300, 30% less makes the stugg around 210..thats where it should be in relation to MK4 15% makes it the same as MK4. Very little point buying a Stugg. I think some exotic stuff like the Jagdtiger a little commonsense needs to be allowed for. Im not say30% across the board for TD..but certainly for all the mainstream variants...Even jagdpanther could come back. At 390 when did you last buy one in a QB? what would it need to be for it to be a prospect, If the Stuggs where 210 well then i think we would find they would start coming up in AARs and QB games..You almost never see them. Same with everything else

At 210 pts the StuG would be at about the same price point vis-a-vis Pz IV as it was in the CM1 games. Ironically, the reason the StuG costs what it does in CM2 is probably because people complained it was too cheap in CM1. That and Hetzers, which were cheaper than the cheapest Sherman.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Yes, Panzer IV and Fireflies are about the same price, but the choice for the German player is not between the Pz IV and the Firefly, it's between Pz IV and StuG and Panther (mainly, taking rarity into account). Given the prices of those units I would consider the Pz IV a valid quantity choice.

True that the German player cannot choose Fireflies, but it's no good trying to surprise an opponent by a value strategy when his strategy remains better value. You won't catch any Allied opponent on the wrong foot by choosing Panzer IV's.

 

[Bulletpoint]

On a related note, does anyone ever buy Sherman 75s? If Panthers are a given that would seem a bad idea.

A Sherman 75 can knock out a Panther frontally at 450-650m through the turret (firing regular AP). And since the game highly favours turret shots, and most combat in CM takes place at less than 650m, the Sherman is far from defenceless.

That's even before we start talking about how vulnerable the Panther is to flanking. And before we talk about how common it is for the Panther to get its gun knocked out.

But yeah, against a US player, at least there is a kind of balance where the Panther is tough and expensive, and the Shermans weaker and cheaper. It's mostly when you add the cheap UK Fireflies to the mix that the balance goes out the window because the German player has no real counter. If defending the German player can sort of counter them by stocking up on Marders and PaK 40's, but in an attack or meeting engagement I don't know.

 

[Titan]

A Sherman 75 can knock out a Panther frontally at 450-650m through the turret (firing regular AP). And since the game highly favours turret shots, and most combat in CM takes place at less than 650m, the Sherman is far from defenceless.

That's even before we start talking about how vulnerable the Panther is to flanking. And before we talk about how common it is for the Panther to get its gun knocked out.

But yeah, against a US player, at least there is a kind of balance where the Panther is tough and expensive, and the Shermans weaker and cheaper. It's mostly when you add the cheap UK Fireflies to the mix that the balance goes out the window because the German player has no real counter. If defending the German player can sort of counter them by stocking up on Marders and PaK 40's, but in an attack or meeting engagement I don't know.

One needs to keep in mind, whilst armour wise allied stuff is cheap and capable of doing most Jobs, the germans have an advantage that there Infantry is bless with some very capable AT ability, its not all about tanks. I think that off sets a lot of the allied advantages. I think more tanks get knocked out by panzerfausts and Shrecks than by Piats and Bazookas