Talenn

JasonC said: "If the StuG were penetrated by Russian 76mm to 500m from the front (as CMBB penetration numbers, as opposed to actual penetration performance, suggest), then its price might be the right order of magnitude, anyway. But for its actual performance it is drastically underpriced even at 20-40 rarity. This is a sign its base price is off by 50% or more, or it is overmodeled, or both." I've made this same arguement time and time again. I made it when the game was first out and at various other points in the game's history. Each time, I've been shouted down. Too me, this is a GLARINGLY obvious problem. Its not that people are buying StuGs when on the defense because they are cost-effective, its that they are buying them REGARDLESS of the mission. That should be a red flag IMO. But, no...it must be OK because BTS made it that way. <sigh> Anyways, I hope they fix their point cost weighting formula to be more in line with what you've posted because the current formula does not seem to accurately reflect some vehicles performances IN GAME (where it matters). Talenn

This is basically the same issue that I brought up at the beginning of CMBB and has continued to rear it's head time and again. Why? Because I firmly believe that certain vehicles are priced incorrectly, possibly due to the 'weighting' that various stats have in the point cost formula. Let's face it...there are AFVs that we ALWAYS seem to have to fight against in certain time periods. This should be a signal that they are too cost effective. I understand the Party Line about having to have one cost for all situations instead of a floating cost. Fine. No problems there as trying to make a variable point system would result in the game never making it to release. The problem is that certain vehicles tend to make it on to the battlefield almost regardless of the situation. Almost any time I'm in the late '42s/early '43s, I fight StuGs...whether attacking or defending. If they have AFVs, its usually StuGs. That is a definately hint that they are TOO COST EFFECTIVE. When players are picking them to use in roles for which they are not historically suited because they are still the most cost effective AFVs, then there is a problem. Who wouldnt rather have 3 StuGs than 2 MkIVs and a few points left over? Its more guns, more armor, and almost as many MGs. You are basically frontally immune to opposing AFVs of the time whereas with the MkIV's, you can far more easily be taken out. Even if one StuG completely bogs and is taken out of the equation, the two remaining StuGs will still aquit themselves better vs most enemy armor and guns. Unless we are talking a knife fight, the StuG is almost always better when you consider the nearly 50% more that will present on the battlefield. Anyways, this horse is dead, Dead, DEAD. But the point is still valid. Until recently, I wasnt able to put my arguement into text. Now I can: Certain vehicles should be addressed for point balance because they are being picked (and effective) in situations where they should not be based solely on the cost in PV. Did any of that make sense? Talenn

Steve: I absolutely agree that the changing situations can make for difficult PV formulae. In fact that is one of the most compelling reasons to embrace these types of discussions rather than dismiss them. But my point is (and was with the StuGs) that at some point, you have to take a step back and see the trends. If 'x' is always being puchased (or reasonably always) or 'y' is never purchased, then you have to at least ENTERTAIN the possibility that there might be inaccuracies in the formulae. And that is not what I've seen here. What I see is basically a version of either 'it cant be done 100% accurately, so this is as good as its ever going to get' or 'well, we KNOW we are right so we arent even going to consider the possibility that collected data could change our minds'. Perhaps that is not the intention, but that is what it comes out as (and I'll admit that in some cases it is very warranted). Anyways, the point here is that unless you are stating that there is no way that the formulae can be tweaked to be more accurate, then it behooves you to try and take these types of threads as constructive criticism and use them to collect data that might eventually allow you to tweak the formulae and make them more accurate. I think there are some pretty convincing arguements here (as there were in the StuG thread) that PVs might be out of whack a bit in regards to cost-effectiveness of certain items. Instead of basically dismissing them, wouldn't it be possible to use them to possibly conduct further research into tweaking the formulae? Finally, I am aware that tweaking this game to perfection doesnt pay the bills. But this is something that I'm sure that some of the more 'senior' testers or poster would be more than glad to research and collect data on. Cheers, Talenn

You know, it all comes back to the same point I was trying to make with how cost effective StuGs were (waaaaayyyy back when the game first came out). At that point, I decided that it wasnt worth my time trying to suggest things here so I gave up, but the situation here is similar so I'll throw another $.02 into the pot. What it really comes down to is 'Why do the Point Values exist?'. It certainly isnt to balance scenarios, because as has been pointed out repeatedly, they are completely unnecessary there. So, that leaves QBs. Dont Point Values exist to provide a 'balanced' game for QBs? If so, then the PV of a particular item should accurately reflect is 'worth' on the QB battlefield completely independant of any 'historical' baggage. As has also been pointed out repeatedly, QBs do NOT even begin to simulate reality. The chances of an 'even' fight like the ones portrayed in QBs were slim and to be avoided. So, why bother holding QBs to the same 'realism' standard as scenarios? Why is it that when an item is judged (and analyzed) to be too cost effective or not cost effective enough, the canned response is 'well, because that is realistic'. It shouldn't MATTER if its realistic or not because realism went right out the door when you selected 'Quick Battle'. What else are the Point Values supposed to be doing if not to be providing some sort of mechanism for creating a 'fair' or 'balanced' game? So shouldnt they be based on how 'cost effective' the item will be when used in the manner for which they are bought...ie QBs? Anyways, this is still a touchy subject for me (hehe...does it show?). I think many people on this forum are doing the game a great disservice by constantly 'shouting down' (literally of figuratively) many folks who are trying to voice legitimate (at least to them) complaint. Talenn

Steve: That sounds really cool and is exactly the type of thing I was talking about...something to reign in the overpicked units. That seems like it might fit the bill quite nicely. It seems conceptually similar to the way SSI's old Kampfgruppe did it. You bought formation and were 'dealt' the unit types. A Panzer Battalion could be MkIIIs, MkIVs, or Panthers. It depended on year and a random factor weighted for availability and it worked quite well. Where it fell short was when, for instance, a Tank Bn would always cost 'x', but could vary so wildly in effectiveness that games could be made unreasonable. Still, it was the price of doing business and it went a long way towards people going out of their way to pick overly large amounts of armor. Here's looking forward to that system. In the mean time, I'll just stick with AI generated forces or battles drawn from a 'metagame' that my group might considering throwing together. Thanx for the sneak peak! Talenn

I actually dont play any ladder games. I just play casual pickup TCP/IP games. I never felt the need to use any special 'rules' in CMBO, we just avoided the 'rare' but cheesey vehicles in the game. Thats the problem we are having. StuGs are weed common for most of the time so buying them shouldnt be 'gamey'. But they seem so out of whack compared to their costs in many situations. Maybe its just perception (as other have suggested), but whats perceived is real. So, we haven't come up with any 'rules' that make any sense that prohibit StuGs. There just doesnt seem to be any logical basis other than how effective they are per cost. If we 'banned' them in QBs, what could you have left? Would T34s and KVs then be banned? The list could be endless and we end up with nothing but go-carts. Looking forward to someone else's though. Talenn

Steve: I've said before that text is a poor medium for communication sometimes. It fails to convey tone and inflection which are sometimes critical in understanding someone's point. I think that is the situation here and people are all debating around the same tree. I've always understood (since your first postings on this) your position on this and I accept it. I dont necessarily agree with it in full, but I do see the logic behind the decision. I was just sort of set off again by the way this discussion had turned. A lot of that, I think, can be attributed to the tone of the original poster. He came in loaded for bear and the response was someone more curt and blunt than the previous thread. FWIW, I'd still like to see some effort made to curtail 'gameyness' in force selection whether by points (apparently not), availability, or some other factor. Point cost was just an obvious, accessible target. Reigning in 'overused' vehicles could be done in a number of ways. Its my hope that discussions like this serve a purpose to show that it IS a semi-important issue to have QBs where variety occurs, and not pervasive use of some equipment (whether it be StuGs, Hetzers, Sturmtigers, KVs/T34s in 41, or whatever). Gaylord Focker: Ok, buddy...you are asking for it!! You want flames? Huh? I can do that with or without a StuG involved!!!! In all seriousness, you may have seen it as 'table pounding', but if you look, there are some additional points brought up (and addressed). I'd hardly call that the pouting demand for a change that you seem to be seeing. There is indeed 'logic' behind (at least some of)the complaints. I'm not asking you to agree, but only to see that there IS something more than 'whining' going on. I'm more interested in the rationale behind the decisions than the decisions themselves at this point. I think I've found them, but I WOULDNT have if I had sat there like a 'good little boy' and said 'Yes, BFC, this is the best ever...it cant be better...dont change a thing'. If everyone had that idea, I dont think we'd have seen half of the improvements we saw from CMBO to CMBB. Discussing 'balance' is a good thing. Debating points that multiple people (independently) observe is a good thing. In the end, change is good thing (I think everyone who has played both CMBO and CMBB would agree). But that change comes at the price of discussion and occasionally arguments. And its hard to have those discussions (and keep your temper) when someone from the peanut gallery always has to come in and insert 'quit whining'. Just my $.02 on it Talenn

Steve: FWIW, after reading back a little more carefully, I agree with what you say about the players having control to avoid certain situation. Its very true, and I am doing just that. I just found it somewhat strange that people have to avoid certain times and matchups (and very common ones...ie, the time period around Uranus) to have a 'fair' battle. IMO, thats the job of the point values. But, as has been mentioned, that would almost require a floating PV based on time period. My next question would be: Do you think this would be possible in the rewrite...let me rephrase that...do you think it is PRACTICAL for the rewrite? It doesnt have to be 'perfect' either, but a closer approximation would always be a good thing. Gaylord Focker: This is not an insult, just an observation. People like you are why these discussions always turn ugly and into flamewars. If you dont have more to contribute other than essentially 'Stop whining', dont bother. Also, if you dont care whether you win or lose, why bother entering a debate/discussion about whether certain items are cost effective and 'fair'? Very few things set people off faster than getting 'learn tactics' and 'quit whining' as a response. Talenn

Ok, first of all, for all of you not paying attention out there...NO ONE IS SAYING THE STUGS ARE UNBEATABLE. I dont believe I (or others) have ever stated that. That is NOT the issue. They CAN be killed. They DO die...Ok, I'm assuming we've cleared that up now. The point that I (and a few others) have made is that there if certain vehicles are constantly picked in QBs and are generally regarded as 'must haves' if available that some sort of factor should be added that increases the cost to make them less of a steal. Yes, I understand that across the board it is tough. Yes, I understand that MANY things factor in that adjust cost. BUT I think one of the things the 'formula' lacks is 'protection vs COMMON battlefield opponents'. Is that another name for 'fudge factor'? Yep, it sure is. And many a game designer (including myself) has found himself in the position of having to use it. But Steve's quote below sums it up: "Actually, "said vehicle" would probably be WORSE and more expensive. And that sits just fine with me" If you are content with that situation, then that explains the issue. Actual 'Cost Effectiveness' of the vehicle is not the exact target of the formula. I realize that it is an elusive target and would take time and a lot of testing to derive. I understand why you dont want to mess with it. Its a decision that I've accepted, although I dont agree with it. Thats fine. I'll play as it is and just avoid cherry picked forces. Also, FWIW, by 'player derived', I didnt mean open forum debate. (NIGHTMARE!) I meant that 'internal' testers go in and give input on what they see and how vehicles perform per cost and adjustments are made, tested, adjusted etc. If, after release, certain values are seen to be off (via mass player input..ie Puppchen and MG Jeeps IIRC), then more testing and adjustments are made. This is NOT impossible and to say that it is is just as much sticking fingers in ears and saying 'la la la'. Its an opinion. It MAY be in error, just as your can be. I can accept that. I tend to not accept that 'this is the way it is and its as good as its going to get, so we wont try alternatives.' YMMV. Again, thanx for the input, but I think its just an area that is going to have be 'agree to disagree'. There are two methodologies here and they somewhat conflict. I dont believe that either is completely wrong or right, but that a combination of both would produce the best results, although at a considerable cost of time and effort. I also understand that that time and effort wont necessarily pay the bills, so ITS not 'cost effective'. Fine, I'm a realist. I just get the fur up when I'm told that its not POSSIBLE. Talenn

Well, as the one who started the original thread, let me throw a few more pennies into the pot: Ok, IMO, a static formula is just as flawed as a 'play derived' system if used in a vaccuum (which it appears that it is...ie, no 'game experience' influencing the cost). Here's some reasoning/examples: Say, for instance, a StuG model was deployed in early 43 that had 500mm of frontal armor (somehow...who know..just an extreme example). What would your cost system say? If I read you right, it would be a VERY expensive vehicle because the costs are static, based on vehicle stats etc, and 500mm of armor would be grotesque. BUT, said vehicle would be almost NO better than the standard StuG out there in that time frame because both are still frontally immune to 95% of the opposing weapons while retaining all of the disadvantages of a turretless, MG-less vehicle with weak side armor. Do you see what I am getting at? If another version of the StuG had 70mm of armor, it would be marginally cheaper than the StuGIIIF/8 or G, and would be infinately less survivable because it COULD be frontally killed by the primary opponents. The context of a vehicle's use cant be determined for pricing (ie, scenario type, terrain, weather, etc). That much, I'll accept. But I STILL think that its very possible to adjust the formula to get a closer approximation of a particular vehicle/unit's typical combat potential. Since this is not something that CAN be scientifically derived, there has to be some human 'common sense' intervention or the whole system of having point values for QBs kind of breaks down IMO. There are always going to be 'favored' units, that much is true. But it IS more possible than people seem to believe to go in and apply some modifiers based on common battlefield matchups. As I said in my earlier post, I think its far better to err a little on the high side for some vehicles than the low side. As an example, a StuG would cost a bit more upon 'release'. That would mean that in late 44, it would more or less disappear from QBs unless other vehicles were suffering a pretty stiff rarity penalty. But I'd prefer that to the over use of StuGs in battles between Fall of 42 and say, Winter of 43/Early 44 where it begins to become outclasses or at least matched. It would at least encourage a little bit more variety in many time periods in QB play. I'm smart enough to realize that at this point, any of these discussions is really just the equivalent of banging your head against the wall. But, at least I'm not the only one seeing StuGs being constantly deployed in QBs and coming out ahead of Soviet armor while costing less. One thing that many of you are forgetting in your 'flank them' examples and whatnot, is that its the THREAT of the StuG that does most of the work. You cant KNOW that there are no StuGs around, so your armor is VERY limited in how it can support the infantry (where everyone says--correctly--that its better than the StuG). BUT, if you commit it, you can lose it without being able to hit back due to frontal invulnerability. If you dont commit, you might as well have spent to the points elsewhere. The advantage is ALWAYS on the German side here because they CAN commit the StuGs forwards (as long as they arent totally sloppy) while the Sov armor is hamstrung. That is a HUGE advantage that is only present in the artificial confines of a derived 'fair' battle. But THAT is exactly where the point values should come in and make a difference. akdavis: If the German player selects 'armor' formation, he can (I believe) spend 100% on armor---just like the Russians. That still allows them a sufficient infantry screen and nulifies the supposed Soviet advantage in armor points. Priest: Not every discussion involving point values necessarily involves Starcraft twitch crowd kiddies. It IS possible to debate and change points in a Wargame without devolving to 'my Zergling will oWnZor your Marines'. That is something this crowd falls back on an awful lot...if you want to change the system, you must be trying to make it like 'x' L337-DoOd game. Not everyone who wants to 'balance' things is a kiddie. Hope this helps clarify a few things and furthers the discussion (even as I beat my head against the wall....*whack*...*thump*....owww...) Talenn

Chad Harrison: And you probably wont see many MkIII/IVs because IMO (and probably in most people's), being frontally immune to return fire far outweighs the benefits of having a turret and being vulnerable, especially if you are paying less for the better protected vehicle. We saw the same thing in CMBO, and its 'worse' here because the StuGs are 'common' and 'realistic' compared to Hetzers which could be considered 'gamey' when overused. Talenn

Vanir Ausf B: I second that request! I thought I just hadnt figured out how to make it work yet... Talenn

redwolf: My take exactly. Its not the single action I want to see, but trends over time. I KNOW StuGs can be beaten...Tigers can be beaten, Panthers can be beaten... But what I want to see is what vehicles tend to be favored by the majority of QB players. Talenn

To quote Robert Redford aka Major Cook... "Well what did ya expect? Destroyers?"

wwb_99: Interesting. But unfortunately for the PzIV, in most actual games, engagement ranges of less than 700m seem more common. Also, the StuG will kill the T34s just as easily as your PzIVs at the same range, arent likely to be flanked at those ranges, is still immune to the T34s when the range gets down to 200, and still costs less than your PzIV...I just fail to see the logic of paying for a more expensive vehicle with the same gun that is FAR more vulnerable. Perhaps its just differences in play style, but I would wager that most people just have ingrained in their history-filled brains that StuGs dont attack as well as PzIVs. Operationally, I would agree. In GAME terms, I fail to see why that is the case in many situations. Yes, there ARE limitations to the StuG...I never denied that, buy my opinion is that those limitations are far outweighed by the MUCH better protection and with a cheaper price to boot. It seems to almost be a no-brainer decision to me. As I said above, time will tell if others begin to think the same way (especially after having their PzIVs smoked time and again while the StuGs lay there unscathed! ). Talenn

Panzer76 et al: Ok, I understand why you feel that a StuG is more limited on the attack...it obviously is, but that doesnt meant that it cant perform well there. Put another way, are you really going to pay MORE for a turreted PzIV that can be killed from any aspect? I mean, sure you can flank a StuG and kill it that way, but you dont have to flank the PzIV to kill it...just shoot head on and boom! (this is the PzIv's that are available concurrently with the StuGF/8 and earlier StuGIIIGs). No fancy maneuvering is required and now the German player has to worry about getting hit. In the StuG, he only really has to be worried about people get to the flanks. Perhaps its the Panzers that are overpriced, but even on an attack, I'd take my chances with StuGs over a tank that is KOed by the most common enemy vehicle...YMMV. Given that a PzIV and a T34 trade about even, I was focused on the StuG as too cheap. Maybe the turreted AFVs are overpriced in comparison? Do people go with PzIII/IV's over StuGs in competitive battles where the rarity is similar? So far, from the (admittedly few) battles I've done, I'd say no. What are the rest of y'all seeing? StuGs or Pzs? Thanx, Talenn

xerxes: StuGs aint for attackin'. Actually, depending on the map, they can do OK at that too, but as indicated, they arent the best for adverse ground conditions. If you have long lines of sight, just use them for overwatch and point removal. Amusing story though. Talenn

Hey folks, Just checking to see if I'm just missing something here. Is there a way to randomize Division type without randomizing Nationality? For example, I want to do the Russians vs Germain (not Partisan, Poles, Italians etc) but I want the Division types to be picked at random. Is this possible to do? If not, is it something patch-able or was there a specific reason this is not an option? Thanx, Talenn

Again, good points one and all. I was aware of most of this stuff before, but it never hurts to get a more in-depth analysis. There is always something new to pick out of it. I think one thing that aggravates the situation is that the players know the 'mission' before they pick in a QB. That lets them custom tailor their force and makes it harder to 'catch' them buying for the wrong occasion. From what I've gathered above (and from my personal knowledge), the StuG obviously isnt optimized for the attack. But that just means that people wont BUY them for an attack. An interesting option to have (and this is just thinking out loud), would be to have both players pick forces for the agreed upon point value. Then, if the battle is an attack (assuming you went with Random battle type), one side's forces are 'inflated' by the correct percentage, but the force mix remains more or less intact. If something like that could be implemented, 'min-maxers' might think twice about overloading on situation specific AFVs (ie StuGs! ) because they might find that they have a vehicle totally unsuited for the mission. I'm not sure how viable that is for CMBB (although I would imagine that a similar mechanism to the casualty removal could be used) but it would make a nifty feature for the engine rewrite at the very least! Thoughts? Talenn

Andrew Hedges: Actually, I enjoyed Green troops in CMBO very much. They felt more 'right' than the supermen of Regular+. I also felt that many of the divisions present on the Western front qualified as Green. A few points though: 1) Actually doing the points out, 3 Regular StuGIIIG(mid) costs about the same as 5 Conscript T34(early) in Spring of 43. Those are some VERY long odds for the T34s... 11 T34s vs 3 StuGs is actually more than 2 to 1 in favor of the Russians pointwise. Thats not likely to happen in many QBs... 2) Conscripts not only bail when hit, but they also spend a lot of time 'reversing' and dancing around (realistic, but not effective) rather than shooting. 3) For every tactic you can devise like that, I'm sure someone else could come in here and say 'yeah, well if I was playing the StuGs I could beat 11 T34s by doing x,y,z,'. At that point its a tactics matchup, but if I have to have 2 to 1 in points in the field to make it come down to tactics, its a problem. 4) In order to utilize the tactic you describe, you DO have to somewhat significantly outnumber your opponent. Thats tough to do when they cost the same or less. 5) Nonetheless, point taken and it is something that I'm trying to do more frequently. The first few online games I played, I was completely unprepared for the notion that the StuG was frontally immune to the 76.2 cannon. Anyways, the points have been made. StuGs have weaknesses and they can be exploited. I've never doubted that. Time will still have to tell whether they will become 'overused' in QBs like certain vehicles in CMBO. My money is still on 'yes', but I certainly could be (and hope I am) wrong. Talenn

Personally, I think the infantry modeling is nearly perfect. It certainly requires a much larger degree of skill and patience than CMBO did. When I first picked up CMBO, I did use all the proper cover fire and maneuver techniques. Then, when playing multiplayer, I found that they werent required...people just bum-rushed my positions and overran them, hence my original crusade about MG effectiveness. In CMBB, almost everything feels about right. About the only thing I would change would be the tendancy of troops to fire at distant (400-500m) targets when there is a threat much closer. It makes moving even at long range, much more difficult than I would expect in real life once the enemy is engaged. For example, I've advanced a reasonably good order platoon into a woodline opposite the enemy at about 100-150m. We begin to shoot it out, with neither side being able to move out and attack the other across the middleground. Far behind the line, I detach a Company CO and have him move to join up with another group advancing on another (out of LOS) flank. Inevitably, one or more enemy infantry in the firefight area will retarget this completely non-threatening group of guys moving slowly and away from their area 400m away and drop him to ground...ummm...dont think so. There are bigger (and more dangerous) fish to fry much closer and wasting time and ammo at a distant target probably wouldnt be high on their list. FWIW, I'd prefer that infantry units didnt target enemy units beyond a certain range (maybe 200m?) if there are 'threatening' enemies closer. ASL did a good job of simulating that with a few of its targeting restrictions. Chad: Yes, unlearning all the 'bad habits' from CMBO takes a little time. Its rewarding though once you learn to 'do it right' and everything breaks your way! Talenn

Steve: Ok, not to drag this out any further, but I knew my point about lowering quality was going to be attack because I phrased it poorly. In the example, the Russians can gain more T34s by lowering the troop quality which you mention is 'realistic'. Agreed. BUT it still doesnt alter the equation. If I can afford, say 4 T34s to match my opponent's 3 StuGs and I lower my quality to Conscript so I can outnumber him with 8 to 3, whats stopping my opponent from lowering his quality and getting 6 StuGs? Thats what I meant by not altering the equation...the lowering of quality can be done by both sides, so its not a 'valid' issue in balancing IMO. Also, FWIW, at this point, the main issue is lost. I was never trying to state that the StuG is unbeatable, just potentially 'overly-efficient' for its cost. All the 'real world' examples in the world about how StuGs werent present here and there and if they were, the Russians would have had to adapt etc, are, in the end, not relevant to an individual game balance issue IMO. Thats what the point value is for...to translate vehicle effectiveness into a generic number that allows two players to sit down and play with a reasonable chance of a win being pulled out based on skill. IMO 'Point value' serves no other 'historic' function, but is there to provide a basis for force balance. Again, whether war is 'fair' or not is also not relevant here IMO. Of course war isnt fair. But to have an effective game, it has to be 'fair' or else you dont really have much of a game. As an extreme example, if one side is winning 90% of the time because 'fairness' doesnt factor in, in short order no one will be playing the game because its not worth spending the time on foregone conclusions. I'm certainly not saying that this is the case, but trying to demonstrate that 'fair' has to factor into the equation. By way of another example, if T34s were lowered to 30 points each, the game would certainly falter because no one would want to be the Germans. In that example, I'm sure people could find historic examples out the wazoo of hopelessly outnumbered Germans being overrun by hordes of T34s, but who the heck wants to game THAT? Anyways, the point on 'balance' is well taken and I understand its a Holy Grail that can never be fully attained. A note I remember from long ago in a fantasy minitatures system sums it up fairly well: Paraphrased, it was something like 'How can any point value be totally accurate when dealing with such divergent capabilities? If we rate a 'Goblin' at 3 points, how much should a Dragon who cant be hurt by the Goblin cost? 300? 3000? It is impossible to rate these two in the same system accurately because it doesnt matter how many Goblins are present, they will eventually lose...but we have to do it anyways'. I think that about say it all, and I can accept that. Anyways, thanx for the discussion. We have strayed farther and farther from the original, so at this point, I'm content to leave it be and see what develops. I intend to keep a close eye on Tournaments and on my own QBs with people to see force mixes and vehicle choices. If certain vehicles are widely thought to be 'no brainer' purchases, I'll return here to lobby for an increase based on 'field experience' . Talenn

Steve: Not to dispute your 'buy' example, but could you show me how you got those forces? I've never been able to field anything resembling what you have there for the Soviets at 1400 points. Admittedly I've only played a handful of QBs online, but I'd like to see if that is a contrived force based on optimum conditions or whether the Soviets are commonly able to enjoy that type of numerical advantage. I tried it in a QB Meeting Engagement (didnt see a 1400 setting, just 1250 and 1500). I got 'Mechanized' and couldnt field anything near like the number of the troops you indicated. A BN of troops and then 3xT34s of the most common type. If you are going with a Conscript force, it might be possible, but there you are looking at those 3 StuGs handing all 11 T34's their @$$ without issue. The attacking infantry will be equally (and easily) dealt with by 2 companies of German Infantry. IMO, 3-2 is not good odds when your quality is that poor, but again, YMMV. Anyways, I'm just trying to see how you can gain numerical superiority if the vehicles are the same cost (or the StuGs are cheaper). Sure, the point variance between German 'armor' buys and Soviet 'armor' buys can account for it, but then you are giving up other arms or going with lower quality troops. The point I was trying to make about outnumbering was from a game balance PoV, not Operational vs Tactical. If the other side has better quality equipment or troops, you should expect to be able to have more than them without further sacrificing troop quality. In other words, you are already at a disadvantage with T34s vs StuGs all things equal (despite the StuGs equal or lower price tag). If I lower my crew quality to get more T34s, I havent altered the equation in my favor (unless the formula for determining cost based on troop quality is off, but... ). Thanx again, Talenn

The Bard: Thanx for the compliment. When posting on forums, its important to realize the people cant see tone and voice inflection. That leads to people taking things the wrong way on occasion and eventually flame wars. I'm glad this discussion never degenerated down that path. Steve: Fair enough. I honestly didnt expect to come here and post about this and have it magically changed in the the upcoming patch. I'm realistic enough to know that changes like this have to come gradually and after a semi-large consensus. I feel I accomplished my goals of 1) gaining some insight into the vehicles that can 'counter' the StuG and 2) raising the awareness so that at the very least, people will take notice if the StuGs DO seem to perform a bit too well for their cost. FWIW, I'll stick to playing the Russians. I'm not going to let a little thing like unkillable enemy AFVs stop me. I've played the Russians in every game I've had including numerous Cold War and modern sim. Believe me, I'm used to not being able to frontally effect enemy MBTs (Abrams M1A1/A2 vs T72 anyone?). One thing I WAS used to counting on though, was numerical superiority in the face of enemy qualitative superiority. I think that is why the StuG's cost sent up a red flag for me...with their cost, its not really possible to outnumber them...hence my original post. Anyways, back to the game. For the moment, I'm sticking with total random (including AI picked forces), so its not really an issue. I just was getting a bit tired already of seeing StuGs in every player's OOBs. Thanx again for the input and rationale behind it all. Talenn

I was playing a QB against the AI and was 'dealt' an OT-34 Flamethrowing tanks (Green crew) with my defending troops. It engaged some enemy infantry, but was hit by something from afar and lost the commander. The vehicle was Shocked and later hit by something else and Routed. Now here is the neat thing: It fired in 'self defense' even though it was Panicked/Broken/Routed. Some German crunchies tried to get close and it pivoted and fired the MG while backing away. Any infantry that tried to close were subjected to MG fire. I'd never seen a Broken AFV fire before. Is that a new feature in CMBB or was it in CMBO and I just never saw/noticed it before? Regardless, it was definately interesting to see it happen. Talenn