Redwolf

This is a petition from players over at thefewgoodmen CM playing community. It regards Quickbattle pricing of common tanks that we think should be adjusted.
In our opinion a basic 75mm Sherman, a basic PzIV long and a basic StuG long should roughly be priced the same.
As for changing the pricing model we feel that:
the turret on the tanks is worth quite a bit, so the StuG should be discounted for the lack of it. CMx2 is good enough to really make a turret count same for the additional MG and ammo loadout on the real tanks - right now secondary weapons seem not to influence prices much at all. Again, current CMx2's engine mechanisms provide good utility from these MGs although the PzIV has a better gun than the 75mm Sherman the 50mm front turret puts it right back into the same price class. And the Sherman has better HE Currently the prices are (in CMBN):
basic Sherman M4M1 (mid) 190 points Pz IVJ (early) 241 points StuG III (mid) 299 points We feel that the current pricing is getting in the way of both historically accurate force mixes (not enough StuGs) and also of general fairness between the sides. Pricing these three the same would improve both and lead to more even, realistic forces. Our community makes a lot of use of QB-purchased vehicles (we are probably the experts on it) and we feel the combat capabilities are fundamentally equivalent between these three.

Nobody in this thread has based pricing on 1:1 battles. That's in your head.
Having said that, you might recall that even the CMBO demo called them roughly equivalent. Not sure how CM ended up with so expensive StuGs now.
Now, a question to you: you seem to think very highly of the StuG (this commend) and the Panzer IV (last page). Are you happy with the StuG being 25% more expensive than the Pz IV?

Why would I do that? Rarity takes care of that and nobody seems to have a problem with the rarity values that BFC picked.

Why would I do that? Rarity takes care of that and nobody seems to have a problem with the rarity values that BFC picked.

The sole existence of a site like FGM shows how good the existing system actually is. It is quite workable, about 50% of the games and tournaments use self-selected forces, and usually with rarity set to standard.
So why not improve the historical accuracy if all that it would cost is adjust some variables to make the most common vehicles more common?
BTW, US squads wipe out all other squads, easily. But that is not a problem, I have never seen anybody having a problem with the squad prices. If you consider how difficult that is you will realize how attractive this gaming system already is.
 

I support the idea.
75mm Sherman (with no W's) is a great tank for infantry support with decent antitank capability and protection. I tend to buy them a lot. Pz IV has a good gun for AT work but is too vulnerable. At the typical ranges in CM it is not better vs Sherman in tank vs tank. I avoid them in QBs. StuG III is a capable tank destroyer with good frontal protection, but its limited HE loadout and lack of a useful MG (until the late versions get a coaxial) make it less useful for support. I like to use StuGs in QBs but I do it knowing that I am getting a bad deal on the points. Getting roughly the same value from the three, I would like to see them at roughly the same cost.

That brings you into "Panther Hell". For the Germans the only zero rarity vehicles are a Mk IV, a StuG and a Panther. Since the other two are overpriced you have no choice but go for the Panther if you play 0 rarity. Panthers are seriously fun-limiting.
In reality people save rarity points when selecting infantry and support and then spend those rarity points in vehicles such as open-top TDs, Wespes or Jagdpanzers. More fun battles are a result. But you need to save up for the rarity.
Correcting the price for StuGs and Mk IVs would drive more battles into the fun zone without rarity games. The mispricing is what makes rare vehicles so attractive, and hence you see more rare-induced forces. Not good for fun or historical accuracy.

OK, let's look at Shermans (any Sherman) versus the Stug:
both can penetrate each others' front armor in a direct confrontation at long range the StuG's gun will score quicker, however at those same ranges the StuG shell starts bouncing off the Sherman's hull the HE from the Sherman is substantially more powerful, useful for anti-infantry work the StuG only has a single MG crippled by low ammo. Sherman has two regular MGs with lots of ammo, and a .50 cal on top Sherman has a 5-person crew versus the StuG 4 obviously the turret is a difference. The Sherman doesn't only have a turret, it has a fast turning one the Sherman has self-defense smoke launchers, the StuG does not And that applies to all US Shermans, starting from the 190 points costing one. And the StuG is 299 points. How can that look right to anyone?

OK, let's look at Shermans (any Sherman) versus the Stug:
both can penetrate each others' front armor in a direct confrontation at long range the StuG's gun will score quicker, however at those same ranges the StuG shell starts bouncing off the Sherman's hull the HE from the Sherman is substantially more powerful, useful for anti-infantry work the StuG only has a single MG crippled by low ammo. Sherman has two regular MGs with lots of ammo, and a .50 cal on top Sherman has a 5-person crew versus the StuG 4 obviously the turret is a difference. The Sherman doesn't only have a turret, it has a fast turning one the Sherman has self-defense smoke launchers, the StuG does not And that applies to all US Shermans, starting from the 190 points costing one. And the StuG is 299 points. How can that look right to anyone?

OK, let's look at Shermans (any Sherman) versus the Stug:
both can penetrate each others' front armor in a direct confrontation at long range the StuG's gun will score quicker, however at those same ranges the StuG shell starts bouncing off the Sherman's hull the HE from the Sherman is substantially more powerful, useful for anti-infantry work the StuG only has a single MG crippled by low ammo. Sherman has two regular MGs with lots of ammo, and a .50 cal on top Sherman has a 5-person crew versus the StuG 4 obviously the turret is a difference. The Sherman doesn't only have a turret, it has a fast turning one the Sherman has self-defense smoke launchers, the StuG does not And that applies to all US Shermans, starting from the 190 points costing one. And the StuG is 299 points. How can that look right to anyone?

This is a petition from players over at thefewgoodmen CM playing community. It regards Quickbattle pricing of common tanks that we think should be adjusted.
In our opinion a basic 75mm Sherman, a basic PzIV long and a basic StuG long should roughly be priced the same.
As for changing the pricing model we feel that:
the turret on the tanks is worth quite a bit, so the StuG should be discounted for the lack of it. CMx2 is good enough to really make a turret count same for the additional MG and ammo loadout on the real tanks - right now secondary weapons seem not to influence prices much at all. Again, current CMx2's engine mechanisms provide good utility from these MGs although the PzIV has a better gun than the 75mm Sherman the 50mm front turret puts it right back into the same price class. And the Sherman has better HE Currently the prices are (in CMBN):
basic Sherman M4M1 (mid) 190 points Pz IVJ (early) 241 points StuG III (mid) 299 points We feel that the current pricing is getting in the way of both historically accurate force mixes (not enough StuGs) and also of general fairness between the sides. Pricing these three the same would improve both and lead to more even, realistic forces. Our community makes a lot of use of QB-purchased vehicles (we are probably the experts on it) and we feel the combat capabilities are fundamentally equivalent between these three.

OK, let's look at Shermans (any Sherman) versus the Stug:
both can penetrate each others' front armor in a direct confrontation at long range the StuG's gun will score quicker, however at those same ranges the StuG shell starts bouncing off the Sherman's hull the HE from the Sherman is substantially more powerful, useful for anti-infantry work the StuG only has a single MG crippled by low ammo. Sherman has two regular MGs with lots of ammo, and a .50 cal on top Sherman has a 5-person crew versus the StuG 4 obviously the turret is a difference. The Sherman doesn't only have a turret, it has a fast turning one the Sherman has self-defense smoke launchers, the StuG does not And that applies to all US Shermans, starting from the 190 points costing one. And the StuG is 299 points. How can that look right to anyone?

Existing threads on this topic. Some have sections of pretty high signal-to-noise ratio:
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/stugs.33368/ https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/how-about-a-petition.33676/

That one (which is substantially better) doesn't change the fact that there is a 190 points one. With turret, multiple MGs, and 76 mm turret front armor. The cheap one mind you.
Or look at the British Shermans if you prefer.

I might update this weekend.

This is a petition from players over at thefewgoodmen CM playing community. It regards Quickbattle pricing of common tanks that we think should be adjusted.
In our opinion a basic 75mm Sherman, a basic PzIV long and a basic StuG long should roughly be priced the same.
As for changing the pricing model we feel that:
the turret on the tanks is worth quite a bit, so the StuG should be discounted for the lack of it. CMx2 is good enough to really make a turret count same for the additional MG and ammo loadout on the real tanks - right now secondary weapons seem not to influence prices much at all. Again, current CMx2's engine mechanisms provide good utility from these MGs although the PzIV has a better gun than the 75mm Sherman the 50mm front turret puts it right back into the same price class. And the Sherman has better HE Currently the prices are (in CMBN):
basic Sherman M4M1 (mid) 190 points Pz IVJ (early) 241 points StuG III (mid) 299 points We feel that the current pricing is getting in the way of both historically accurate force mixes (not enough StuGs) and also of general fairness between the sides. Pricing these three the same would improve both and lead to more even, realistic forces. Our community makes a lot of use of QB-purchased vehicles (we are probably the experts on it) and we feel the combat capabilities are fundamentally equivalent between these three.

Well, the (map) editor would be one way to open up a little and get a lot of help to the user.
If maps could be imported and exported in XML format (or whatever known format), we could:
- write a program to move that village on the map 200m to the north
- convert maps between different games without too much guesswork
- if people are enterprising enough we might get automatically generated Quickbattle maps back (don't forget to put ponds on hills)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/meet-104-old-chen-ping-160615001.html
Amazed this guy is still alive. 

This is a petition from players over at thefewgoodmen CM playing community. It regards Quickbattle pricing of common tanks that we think should be adjusted.
In our opinion a basic 75mm Sherman, a basic PzIV long and a basic StuG long should roughly be priced the same.
As for changing the pricing model we feel that:
the turret on the tanks is worth quite a bit, so the StuG should be discounted for the lack of it. CMx2 is good enough to really make a turret count same for the additional MG and ammo loadout on the real tanks - right now secondary weapons seem not to influence prices much at all. Again, current CMx2's engine mechanisms provide good utility from these MGs although the PzIV has a better gun than the 75mm Sherman the 50mm front turret puts it right back into the same price class. And the Sherman has better HE Currently the prices are (in CMBN):
basic Sherman M4M1 (mid) 190 points Pz IVJ (early) 241 points StuG III (mid) 299 points We feel that the current pricing is getting in the way of both historically accurate force mixes (not enough StuGs) and also of general fairness between the sides. Pricing these three the same would improve both and lead to more even, realistic forces. Our community makes a lot of use of QB-purchased vehicles (we are probably the experts on it) and we feel the combat capabilities are fundamentally equivalent between these three.

This is a petition from players over at thefewgoodmen CM playing community. It regards Quickbattle pricing of common tanks that we think should be adjusted.
In our opinion a basic 75mm Sherman, a basic PzIV long and a basic StuG long should roughly be priced the same.
As for changing the pricing model we feel that:
the turret on the tanks is worth quite a bit, so the StuG should be discounted for the lack of it. CMx2 is good enough to really make a turret count same for the additional MG and ammo loadout on the real tanks - right now secondary weapons seem not to influence prices much at all. Again, current CMx2's engine mechanisms provide good utility from these MGs although the PzIV has a better gun than the 75mm Sherman the 50mm front turret puts it right back into the same price class. And the Sherman has better HE Currently the prices are (in CMBN):
basic Sherman M4M1 (mid) 190 points Pz IVJ (early) 241 points StuG III (mid) 299 points We feel that the current pricing is getting in the way of both historically accurate force mixes (not enough StuGs) and also of general fairness between the sides. Pricing these three the same would improve both and lead to more even, realistic forces. Our community makes a lot of use of QB-purchased vehicles (we are probably the experts on it) and we feel the combat capabilities are fundamentally equivalent between these three.

Stop messing up this thread.

I agree that this is clearly fleeing towards the enemy.
It only does so when paniced and down to 2 men. So it is a moderate case. A case that still shouldn't exist if the game's documented behavior is that automatically given commands (without player intervention) should not go toward the enemy.

Every AFV is air-droppable. At least once.

Stop messing up this thread.

Honestly, the CM-style bunkers didn’t really exist any where at any time, at least not as any standard fighting position / fortification.  They are, nonetheless, the only option for placeable overhead cover in game, so have to stand in for many things that did exist and were used routinely.