Larsen

Er... I got CMBN version 3. I don't have the keys though - just a download link. I then upgraded to version 4 and I have keys for that one and the battle pack (also have a key for that one). What do I do? I got CMFI vs 4 and I was able to install and activate it.

Hm. I downloaded CMBN Engine 4 Unzipped the files. Run the activation module and entered the activation key. It said activation was a success. Clicked on Play After that I get a splash screen with tank and explosion close by at night (I guess ) and nothing happens. It stays there for a while and exists without starting a game. If I run CMBN again it goes through the same routine - asks for an activation key, says it was as success, and once I clock play it hangs. Does anyone know what should I do differently? I am on Windows 10.

I remember there was an application that would install and activate the modules. You just had to enter the product key. I can't find it anywhere. I forgot does it come with the games or should I download it separately? In general I have two games CMBN and CMFI with all the modules. Do I need to download all the files consecutively and install one after another until I get all the modules to engine 4? I searched and I could not find the answer...

Thank you! Cheers!

I got a new PC. I have the online download versions of CMBN and CMFI. Will I be able to install them on the new rig without uninstalling them from the old computer?

I think scenarios, campaign... they help new players to get an idea how to play CM. The game is too complex to have even a semi descent AI. In order to balance that the designers boost the defending AI with tons of points. Most scenarios that I saw basically give the defender and the attacker about equal points. If instead of AI you put any human player as a defender there would be no game. Of course there are scenarios designed for H2H games in those AI just can't compete. I strongly believe that CM was designed with the idea of humans playing vs humans. You want to have a good, fun game - find a human opponent.

I'd say Stuart and Lynx should be close in pricing with Stuart costing 5-10 more. Greyhound and Puma also should be close in points and 15-20 points below Stuart.

Hm. Not sure if Puma is a better vehicle that Lynx. 20mm gun is really effective against any soft vehicles and infantry. More so than 50mm gun. But that is beyond the point. Lynx should not cost more than Stuart.

I don't see why QB can not be ahistorical. It also can be unbalanced - there is a choice to give one side extra points. Basically CM gives us an engine that allows us to play a tactical game the way we see fit. There is a lot of different equipment in the game and it would be great if all of it would get used. For that different units, vehicles should be priced in a way to let people chose different force compositions.

Here we go again. Those who want some historical content can play scenarios designed with special historical considerations in mind or set the rarity to whatever they feel comfortable with - strict, standard loose. We are already pushed toward using historical formations by the way purchasing for QBs is done and by the the way C2 works in CM2. The point value of vehicle reflects just the vehicle value expressed in terms of points and in that way is related to the other units int eh game. consider points to be currency that you use in the game. Economical factors are well outside the scope of the game. Please, lets move on from that. I agree with Redwolf - Shermans, Pz IVs and StuGs should be priced about the same. They offer similar values and each have their own advantages and disadvantages and work better relative to each other in different situations.

I did not know that and I didn't bother to count points. Interesting. Each formation starts with 50 points. Thank you! I am not sure how to use that yet but it looks like adding single vehicles to the existing formations might be better rather than adding a new formation with few vehicles.

You can mix Tigers and King Tigers, Panthers and Pz IVs, StuGs and JPz IVs and still get a discount. Once you start purchasing vehicles as stand alone you lose the formation discount.

Everything is relative. Shermans feel cheap compared to Pz IVJ. Those are very similar tanks each with its own strength and weakness. They should be priced about the same. Right now M4 is more than 35 points cheaper. That is a price of a 60mm mortar. I think StuG should be priced about the same as Pz IV J- around 220-230 points if purchased in a formation.

I jsut went through the QB purchase screen. Everything is regular, Standard, 0, fit. September 44. 5 StuGs cost 1470 6 Pz IVs cost 1406 4 Panthers cost 1418 4 JPz IV cost 1338 4 JPz IV/70 (V) cost 1438 3 King Tigers cost 1259 4 Tigers cost 1454 The way StuGs are priced there is no incentive of buying them in a QB. there are just better options. If you want quantity and HE - get Pz IV and change. If you want a tough TD - get JPzIV/70 (V) or JPz IV and change. If you want a tough tank depending on the map - you have options to go Panthers, Tigers or even King Tigers. All are better options than StuGs. What am I missing? Regarding the APCR rounds - I just checked. In September 44 M10(late) gets 2 APCR rounds per vehivle while M10 does not. Which makes getting regular M10 in a QB unpractical.

That would be great if Steve or someone else from BFC would provide some rationale behind StuG pricing. I was under the impression that it was rarity that took care of availability of different units. Maybe some of that trickled in the pricing. In that case Axis players will always be at a disadvantage in QBs vs Allies as QBs don't have any historical meaning behind them.

It isn't. I don't understand why people keep bringing up units that are not in the game. How StuGs priced in other CM games should be confined to those subforums. CMBN, CMFI, CMFB - are all independent stand alone games that are purchased independently. Let's focus on StuG pricing for CMBN that covers western front from July 1944 to September 1944.

I was wrong and you were correct JPz IV is not Hetzer. The US forces in Sep 44 don't have any gun that can kill it from the front and British need Firefly to penetrate from the front. Not sure what 90mm has to do with the discussion. This is CMBN forum. Let's confine our conversation to the equipment covered by the game. This is a thread about StuG pricing in QB. Not about anything else. I believe that the way they are priced now makes them a weird choice for the Axis player to even consider for QBs. They are essentially are priced out of the game.

Correction. I am lookign at purchases for QB in the game now. When buying as single vehicles JPz IV costs 319 (StuG III late costs 296). they have the same gun. JPz has a much better armor, more HE and a working MG. JPz IV/70 (V) costs 362, Same armor as JPz IV and the gun is a Panther gun. This is Hetzer, a very good TD. It is 65 points more than StuG and it is a much better TD - better gun, better armor. When buying formations Hetzer costs 347 and JPz IV (late) costs 312. StuGs when buying in formation cost 284. Essentially JPz IV is 28 points more and is very hard to kill. One needs either a Firefly or a side shot. Even the US 76mm gun on M10 won't get you a kill from the front.

JPz IV/70 and JPz IV/70 (V) are two different vehicles. The second one has the same gun as Panther and is much more expensive. The first one has the same gun as StuG and a much, much better armor, a working MG and more HE shells. It costs about 20-25 points more than StuG in CMBN.

Redwolf compares the prices of StuGs and Panthers. If purchased in a formation the cheapest StuG comes at around 280 points (everything is regular) and Panther comes at about 330 points. We are talking about CMBN and only StuGs III are available.

Scenarios are irrelevant for unit pricing. In a scenario the designer can give sides whatever units he wants without any regard to the unit pricing. In QBs the knocked out units award points based on their QB pricing.

Interesting numbers. Not sure how they are relevant for what we are discussing here. Economics of war is out of the scope for CM.

I find Tigers to be more mobile than I thought. I guess once you start changing the ground condition to wet or dump you'll probably see quite a few bogged down Tigers. I think Sherman also would suffer. My point is that having some kind of formula is good as a starting point. After that prices have to be adjusted based on the feedback - how often certain armor is used in QB. If some tanks are never used that means that either they are completely useless or that their price is too high. The alternative is also true - if some tanks are getting picked all the time that means they are too cheap compared to the alternatives.

It would be great if BFC gives some explanation behind the current QB pricing of StuGs. It seems with whatever formula they use they tend to overvalue the mediocre armor and undervalue the mobility (turret, speed of rotation) and HE load and MG support that tanks can offer.

That is my point. StuG could be a good vehicle for a combat if I could get enough of them in a QB. The way they are priced right now you need very special maps to buy them over Pz IVs. And even then I suspect you better off buying JPz IV (20 points more with better front armor and more HE load). Whatever formula BFC is using to price them does not price them right at the moment. And also the same formula underprices M4s a lot. and I mean a lot.