Larsen

Templates is an interesting idea. It takes some fun out of QBs though as force selection is fun and adds some balancing. I would be interested in trying how it works in real life. I am arguing that StuGs are useless. They are not. It's just 5Pz IVs, 3 Panthers, 6 M4s are better than 4 StuGs. I don't think their HE ammo count goes over 20. 18-19 that is as much as you can get and the MG ammo load is super low.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "would prefer a system that didn't even use purchase points" Returning back to unit price. Do you feel that StuGs are better than any Sherman's with 76mm gun? Do you feel that StuGs are a much better choice than Pz IV? In terms of killing armor all three of them are about the same. It's just tanks also can do a lot of other things that StuGs can't do well because of low HE load and absence of a practical MG and turret. if I follow your logic in killing armor I would say them you probably better off with going with Marders rather than StuGs. You can get 2.5 plus change of those for 1 StuG right now. 4 StuHs or 10 Marders? Look, I strongly believe in letting market do the price finding. I believe that we should have the ability to mod the unit prices. At some point the community would come to an agreement. Right now StuGs are not just expensive - they are prohibitively expensive. And that is a problem.

And this is exactly what is wrong with the way units are priced. The only way to find the price is to let market find it. 76mm Sherman costs 250 points. Are you saying that you would consider the 76mm Sherman and StuG to be similar in performance? Do you think StuGs should be worth more than Pz IVs? Comparing tanks based on tank vs tank battles is just plain wrong.

If you buy them in a formation they are 175. StuGs are about 270. Basically, you have 3 prices. M4 - 175 Pz IVJ - 220 StuG - 270 Do you think those prices are balanced? If not how would you rebalance them?

That is an interesting statistics. I wonder in which of those battles Axis had StuGs.

Oh, common on. M4 is 175. On an open 2x2 StuGs probably could be of a use. That is one special situation. On a map lie that Marder and Nashorn would be even better as they are even cheaper and you can double your tank fighting size. Now Pz III is probably much more useful on right map's with a buildings and trees. You can't price a unit based on very special situations. If M4 is priced at 175 StuG should be around 150.

I see. Basically you run out if arguments. That was expected. Better options as TD - Marder, Hetzer, Nashorn. I want to use a variety of units in QBs. Right now the way StuGs are priced I can't use them. That makes me said. I loved them back in CM1. I really, truly don't care what you think about BFC listening or not. I disagree with their decision and I state it. So far pretty much everyone agreed with me (except you). I bet that that most of the folks who play QBs would come to the same conclusion as me - StuGs have to be cheaper. In fact they have to be my h cheaper. Like half of the price they cost now. This is a blander how they are priced now and BFC should fix it.

So you keep insisting, ah? All right. Let me ask you what is the typical engagement distance in QBs in CM? "If you can find a long (>500m) fire lane on your QB map..." - now you just have to make sure that that long during lane is alined with your infantry advance lane and that a such lane exists at all. You want to use StuGs as TDs which they were not and they are mediocre in that role. There are better options. Now look at the price of 76mm Shermans. They are as good as StuGs for armor fight and they are cheaper - they have a turret, a load of HE shells, MGs. What is your argument now? StuGs should cost 140-150 points. Then you will probably start seeing them in QBs. They are not just overpriced. They are hugely overpriced.

@womble Bravo. You beautifully summed up what is wrong with tank comparison. There is so much wrong with it that I don't even know where to start. 1. tanks' major task is not fighting other tanks. Their main purpose is to support infantry. 2. the HE load of a StuG is 17-18 shells, while M4 has over 50. StuG has only one MG with 600 rounds and in order to use it it has to be unbuttoned. M4 has over 4K. M4 also carries a few smoke shells. 3. M4 has a fast turret. In fact it is even faster than what Pz IV has. 4. M4 can penetrate the upper hull and the front of the infrastructure on StuGs from the distances of up to 300M and achieve a partial penetration at distances up to 500K. For most QB maps those are the typical distances. In any case M4 main task is not to fight German armor - it is to support American infantry and in that role it works very well.

Yes, I saw that thread. I would say that it is not that Pz IV is expensive but rather the StuG is overpriced and M4 is too cheap.

Er... I love AA halftrucks. I think they are the best anti infantry weapon that they is in the game. The quad 20mm will destroy platoons within a couple of minutes. Even single 200mm or 37mm AA guns are powerful. I have to test the 15mm AA guns to see what they do and I suspect that will do really well. I just don't think they will do anything to tanks. I might be wrong. Sherman's 75mm is not that week. At the typical distances of CM engagement (200m-800m) they are quite capable against any armor except for Panthers and Tigers. Am I wrong there? Sure, they are not as powerful as the German 75mm and not as accurate but at those ranges that really does not matter that much. The front turret armor on Pz IV is as much of a problem as the weaker gun on the Shermans. 37mm US gun can penetrate the front turret of Pz IVs. They are very similar tanks in what they can do in the battlefield.

I don't think Pz IV are cheap. I think they are priced about right. I think M4s are cheap and StuGs are not just expensive - they are prohibitively expensive to the point that if you take them out if the game nobody would notice that they are gone. Regarding Pz IV and M4 they are essentially are very similar. I don't get why M4 is 25% cheaper. That does not make any sense. I also don't understand why such a highly modifiable game as CM won't allow the players to adjust the QB points. What would happen that after a few swings the community would come to an agreement for the right prices for different units. Free market is best at price finding - use that mechanism in CM!

Hi Everyone, I played quite a bit of CM1 games back in the days and recently eventually got to playing CM2. I am interested in WWII combat. I picked CMBN and CMFI with all the modules. In my opinion CM is most enjoyable when playing QBs again other players. That to me is the essence of CM. Now, I can't get rid of the feeling that BFC didn't quite get right the cheap and most common armor pricing. StuG in formation (regular, normal, 0) costs about 270 points. Pz IVJ about 220. Sherman M4 175. The question that comes to mind is "really?". 5 Pz IVJ cost about the same as 4 StuGs. This just does not make any sense. It gets even more ridiculous when you compare StuGs to M4s. 3 M4s vs 2 StuGs. What would you rather have? Keep in mind that we are not comparing armor in fighting vs armor. All the three pieces are used in combination with infantry and artillery. Of course they go against each other and that is just one, small part of how they are used in the game. The first question that I have is - does anyone purchase StuGs in QBs? If the answer is NO then their price is off. See, I am not a theoretician. I am a practicioner. I can put forward arguments on why the price is right or wrong. I won't go there. The game is the answer in itself. If people use the same units or formations and don't use others that means that the pricing is off. I think, again that is just my opinion, that Pz IVJ is priced about right, M4 is the way too cheap and StuG is prohibitively expensive. I would love to hear what other players think.

No takers? I can fit one more game.

Hi, since I got no interest in CMBN battles I got CMFI! Let's see if there are more guys interested in Italian campaign. I am looking for one or two pbem games for CMFI. Version 4. Patch 2.11 I am looking for an opponent to play a QB as a ME or Probe. Small or Mid size. I am open to play either side.

Hi, I am looking for one or two pbem games for CMBN. I am looking for an opponent to play a QB as a ME or Probe. Small or Mid size. I am open to play either side. I never played a human opponent in CM2.

What I see is that the panzerschreckz teams happily fire from the second stores of two story building from the distance of up to 300 meters and hitting consistently from 200 meters. And they don't get suppressed when firing from inside he buildings. And since you can't really choose to target the second floor specifically if the LOS to the center of the building is blocked (by hedge for example) then you can't even fire back at them unless they pop up in the window. I really hate how LOS works at CMx2.

What is the consensus? Do panzerschreckz hit consistently at 200 meters? I also noticed that panzerschreck teams don't have any problem shooting from inside the building. I always thought that they should have problems with firing from buildings due to fire blast from the back side of the tube.

The problem is that marked minefield does not equal clear path through mines. I marked one action spot and moved two platoons of regular troops (using hunt command) through it. I moved one team at a time and still triggered mines twice.

This an interesting discussion. I feel that the way currently LOS is implemented there are potential MG placements that are almost impossible to suppress unless using on-map mortars or armor. Imagine a situation where an MG is placed in an action spot (AS) with the gunner being next to, say a hedge (hedge is especially nasty as it makes it almost impossible to suppress the MG from the other side of hedge as they are on the reversed slope compared to the units on the other side of the hedge). He is about 8 meters away from the edge of the AS and about 12m away from the center of the adjacent AS. The infantry that is being suppressed by this MG is pinned down can't really provide cover. The one that is not suppressed does not have a LOS to the MG position and can only target the adjacent AS which is 12M away (from the gunner). Targeting a spot that is 12 meters away from the MG does not really do anything for suppression. Moving into the position that has LOS to the MG's AS will certainly get them pinned. What to do? I really don't like the way LOS is implemented in CMx2. Each soldier in the unit can spot and be spotted but cannot be targeted individually.

I tried using mark mines command and it works (for the most part. sometimes here and there troops still step on the mines but that i can live with). I still think that infantry should not be allowed to walk on the known minefield without a safe path if not panicked. I don't think any allied or German commander would order his troops to cross a know minefield without making a passage through it. What do you think? Of course clearing a substantially large minefield is an an operation that requires a lot of time and effort. But we normally don't deal with those situations at th scale of CM battles. We run into minefields that are 8 by 8 meters. I expect a team of engineers to be able to create a safe path through such a field in 2-3 minutes. Keep in mind that I don't expect them to clear the whole square of mines but rather create a path 1x8 meters that is free of mines (not under fire of course). Am I asking for too much?

Thank you, guys. Somehow I missed that command. I still feel that infantry should be prohibited from moving through the minefield that is not at least marked by engineers (unless panicked).

Does CM has any mechanism where individual squads (pioneers most probably) can create safe paths through the minefields? I left a team of engineers sitting on a known minefield and they did nothing. I feel that if a minefield is found and identified by an attacker there should be no way that he could bring any infantry through without first creating a safe passage. Infantry just should not be allowed to walk through a minefield. Second, if a minefield is identified there should be a way to create a safe path through it. Think of it in this terms. An action spot in CM is 8 by 8 meters (I hope I am right on this). A team of engineers is 4-5 people. They should be able to create a safe path through the minefield in 2-3 minutes (if not under fire of course). Am I missing something?

Aye yes... Bren... tripod... that brings "much good memories"... yea... only a "tiny problem"? You really didn't mean "tiny" did you? [ September 27, 2006, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Larsen ]

You can activate Esc key. If I am not mistaken it's Alt+Shift+: (if Alt does not work try Ctrl).