Jump to content

Redwolf

Members
  • Posts

    8,790
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Redwolf

  1. [SPOILER ALERT] The air support in that scenario includes cluster bombs. So wide spacing between your units is essential. Otherwise there is not much that can be done except bringing more sustainable AA units (vulcan or SAM armed M113s).
  2. Can somebody who knows more about 3D technology explain why anisotropic filtering doesn't get rid of the moire effect in CMx2? I thought that was the whole point of anisotropic filtering.
  3. Is there demand for more testers of the PBEM++ system? As you know - if the software is late, throw more people at it
  4. I don't agree. The amount of tools that BFC put in to script the AI, and made UI elements for, is quite extensive. I'm not saying the AI is competitive, but it isn't because BFC outright gave up on it. Now, if we could code our own AI via an API of some sort...
  5. I think my favorite is still CMFI, but CW is a serious contender.
  6. The 20mm autocannon in a reasonable vehicle (not an unarmored halftrack) costs a lot. Keep in mind that it can penetrate the side of early Shermans at close range. Not that I agree with the pricing, as said Greyhound and Stuart are obviously more valuable but cheaper.
  7. As far as I am concerned StuG, Pz IV and Sherman can as well have the same price. (which I think was roughly the case in CMx1's points calculation formula)
  8. At the end of the day we would all enjoy Quickbattles more if they more or less historical unit mixes. And having a pricing scheme can facilitate that. So fixing some oddities would benefit everybody. I am not talking about a committee driving endless adjustments. I am talking about a one-shot adjustment of the formula after a decade of quickbattles. The number of clearly mispriced units is surprisingly low as it is. Basically the StuG and the Sherman (if you leave Pz IV and Panther alone). So the risk of inadvertently making is worse is small.
  9. It's 20%, so it is buying 5 StuGs or 4 Panzer IV/70. The front armor and the better gun (especially against the Sherman's upper front hull) make the Pz IV/70 much more valuable than that.
  10. Well, the StuG shots can bounce off the upper hull of the Shermans just fine. You can play out the same example with Panthers, which are better than the StuG in every respect. 355 vs 299 purchase points. Panzer IV/70 same thing. Better in every respect than StuG, nearly the same price. ETA: corrected price with CMBN price
  11. My bad, in CMBN one Panther is standard. I did most of my QB in CMFI where it is not. As for the Sherman - as I said I cannot think of a pricing scheme that makes it as cheap as it is. The other stuff somewhat fits my idea of what is valued highly or not.
  12. My theory. I meant that the pricing thinks that side armor is not important, so that means that Tigers are not being made expensive for their armor. Likewise, the pricing thinks ammo loadout is no big deal. MGs are no big deal etc. The Sherman is cheap because the most important pricing point is the main gun's ability to penetrate armor. As you say, its front armor should make it more expensive as it is even within the current pricing scheme.
  13. Yes, and BTW rarity makes things worse. The only standard vehicles for the Germans are the StuG III and the Panzer IV. Playing with strict rarity effectively limits the German player to 50mm front armor if you don't want to pay for the StuG.
  14. Errr. If you have a victory point group made up of mixed vehicles, the points are distributed according to the value of the vehicles knocked out and surviving. It is true as you say that it doesn't matter if you have victory point groups that are homogenous. But mix Pz IV and StuGs in a group then actual losses of StuGs weight more.
  15. Brummbärs Assault howitzers might do, too.
  16. This seems to be how pricing is weighted for vehicles: Heavy weight: - AT performance of main gun (making Sherman 75mm cheap compared to StuG) - minimum front armor (making Pz IV cheap because of 50mm front turret) Medium weight: - HE blast of main gun - mobility (making Tigers cheap) Low weight: - side armor (making Tigers cheap) - does it have a turret (turrets used to be expensive in CMx1) - sidearms (making tanks with multiple MGs cheap) - ammo supply (making tanks cheap)
  17. I think what is way more off than StuG vs Pz IV is StuG versus King Tiger. 299 vs 418 purchase points. Buy 7 Stugs or 5 King Tigers.
  18. It is a bit about scenarios, too. Victory points awarded for knockouts in scenarios are based on unit value. So driving around overpriced hamsterfahrzeuge hurts you even if you didn't pay for them.
  19. The gun, or more precisely the anti-armor performance thereof, weights very heavily in pricing. The short 75mm of the Sherman has problems against 80mm flat armor and that lowers the price quite a bit. Not that I agree with the pricing, just explaining. If you want to talk mispriced units, look at the dirt cheap anti-aircraft unarmored halftracks. Spending the same money on 2 Shermans and a bunch of FlaK trucks will leave the shermans without a chance of winning in a direct firefight.
  20. The pricing of having a turret went from overpriced in CMx1 to underpriced in CMx2. The Pz IV is cheap because of the 50mm thick front turret. But as you can see that seems to be overvalued in the context of the typical combined arms fight. Wouldn't it be great if we could load our own price list as a XML file?
  21. That doesn't work on the Mac, though, and even on Windows it forces you to leave the 3D screen.
  22. This situation is a bit like pure infantry in the WW2 titles attacking a defender with any kind of armed AFVs. No matter how crappy those AFVs are, they turn into pillboxes and even just MG fire can stop you.
  23. Ideally the entire "combat" panel needs to be copied for each weapon the unit has. One copy (with target, target arc, armor target arc) each for main gun, TOW, MG respectively one each for smallarms, dragon, LAW etc.
×
×
  • Create New...