Shermans seem overpriced

[Slapdragon]

I just finished up a game with Grumbling Grognard "Scott". He is a good player, with a good gaming record on the ladders, who knows the game. He took US and I had Germans. The map, by luck, turned out to be open, which often spells doom for the US player, and I slaughtered him with fire from my Panthers as he tried to sneak up to the objective.

He had E8 Shermans while I had early model Panthers, plus I had a few other cheap German TDs. A look at the price shows that the Sherman E8s and Panther are close on the price list, while Tigers are right on par. Other 76 armed tanks are right in there also, loosing some points for lower mobility and less armor.

The trick is though Scott should have been able to get more Shermans -- it would have made for a better game. As it is I am finding when I play Germans only at night or in closed terrain on meeting engagements are the battles really balanced on buy your own. With more Shermans I would have been forced to duck into the woods more and possibly if I positioned wrong defeated by an envelopement.

Some of us have already discussed the ultimate sucker challenge: "open terrain, no air, I play Germans" which is merely an expression of this.

I think by lowering the price of the Shermans a bit across the board many suicide QB challenges would become competitive, and make the German side more fun to play in these battles. This will be even more important in QM2 where hordes of Russian tanks, powerful but really poorly handled, are faced with the well handled but few Germans.

Another possibility to even open air battles is make Jabo's more likely to strike vehicles on heights. This would have an unintended consequence of keeping the US off easily spotted mountain tops also -- which is realistic, since US tankers were as scared of US dive bombers as the German's were.

[KiwiJoe]

I agree. The way its set up now its crazy to buy standard sherman types. The only 1 and buy, and often see, in PBEMs are Jumbos. This is because you simply cant buy enough shermans for the price to be able to use them properly... ie. flanking with numbers. Basically the USA player is forced to buy cheaper TD's.. m18s, Jacksons etc for the anti tank role.

[Guest Big Time Software]

I think the price of this particular Sherman is correct. It is a match for the Panther and can do a real number on a Tiger in normal European engagement ranges.

What I think the problem might be is that the points being used are balanced according to straight math. In other words, any side will get x points when it is playing in y stance (defending against assault, meeting engagement, etc.). This produces a balanced game in most situations.

One thing you did not look at is what the typical tank platoon costs. Here are some examples:

Normandy

5xM4A3 - 600 pts

5xPanther A - 940 pts

5xPzIVh - 605 pts

OK, so a typical US tank platoon is roughly the same value as a typical German tank platoon. A Panther Platoon, on the other hand, is 50% more expensive. So if you are limited to 600 points of armor, the Germans can only get 3 Panthers and the US 5 Shermans. What is incorrect about that?

A later war US platoon MIGHT have at least one 76mm Sherman in it, which raises the total cost by only 40 points or so. But a full platoon of Sherman Easy 8s is about as expensive as 5 Panthers. And it should be that way too, as the Easy 8s were a match for them.

I guess my point is that the US player either takes a historically accurate loadout of poorer quality vehicles or "squanders" the points on a few higher quality ones. The Germans are faced with a similar choice. When both players choose the same thing, it should be roughly a match. If you don't want it to be, you can always opt to give one side more points than the other

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-21-2000).]

[KiwiJoe]

My point is that most games are PBEM quick battles around 1000-2000 points. That means you get around 350-550 points to spend on armour. The german player can buy 2 veteren Panther G's. The allied player can buy around 3 veteren standard shermans. They dont have a hope in open terrian. That means they are forced to buy at least 1 Jumbo 76 EVERY time to have a chance. This makes PBEMs very predictable and unrealistic. Ive played 17 PBEM quick battles and from what I've found the allied tank forces in ww2 consisted of roughly 60% Jumbos. And its not a matter of people simply wanting to buy super tanks... they are FORCED to with the points setup.

The M4, M4A1, M4A1(76)W, M4A3, M4A3 (75&76)W should all be around 100-130 points(ish). This would allow the allied player to field 2 - 2 1/2 times as many tanks as the germans if the decided to use standard shermans. In saying that I find the alled side overall to currently have the advantage in the game due to good scouting units, excellent artillery, and fairly cheap and effective 12 man squads. So maybe my suggestion would tip it too far in their favour... who knows

Oh and by the way BTS thanks for ruining my Friday and Saturday nights... I'm getting major hassle from friends for hardly ever leaving my room.

[Olle Petersson]

I think you're both right...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe:

My point is that most games are PBEM quick battles around 1000-2000 points. That means you get around 350-550 points to spend on armour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This isn't true if you pick an "armoured" force. Then all points can be spent on armour. That's close to a full company of US armour. Another point is that Shermans were more likely to have a less experienced crew than the German heavies.

I don't have the numbers available right now, but I suspect that a "Regular" M4A3 is much cheaper than a "Crack" PzKwVA.

If the Germans have lots of heavies (Tigers, Jagdpanthers or Jagdtigers), that means one out of a few options;

a) They are attacking.

They're defending some strategically extremely valuable place against a heavy Allied assault.

c) Allied intelligence have made a serious blunder. (Like the "dummy" SS armour at Arnhem...)

- If the Allied commander pick something else than "armoured" and still expect to engage heavies, then the historical approach would be to use AT units (TDs or towed ATGs) instead of tanks. He will get plenty of these...

- If the Germans are "expected" to use lots of heavies, then it should be an Assault game, with Allied points bonus if they are the attackers.

Cheers

Olle

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Well, as the victim of Slapdragon I will chime in here because I am not fully convinced that Shermans are really over priced.

In the game Slapdragon mentioned, he just whooped my butt. I don't think another Sherman or two would have made a huge difference. It was in heavy woods and snow. He had my Shermans as the came through a gap in the trees. Poor planning and execution on my part and a good plan on his part sealed my fate, not point values (IMO). Don't blame the point costs for this one, blame me.

But, with that all said, I still wonder if anyone thinks the odds are even when three Sherman M4(75)s face two Panthers on an 'open' map. Without a flank shot the Shermans are dead meat in any sort of 'open' map IMO. Whereas the Panthers don't need a flank shot and can hit accurately across the length of the map and penetrate damn near with every hit. Hell, if the US player doesn't take the A3s he won't even have a speed advantage!

Then, if you consider that in the early battles the US gets no tungsten ammo (as is historically accurate AFAIK) even their 76mm armed AFVs have a hell of a time penetrating Panthers, Tigers, King Tigers, JadgPanthers...etc...etc...

Frankly, I don't know. Perhaps if it were possible the US AFVs could receive a 'discount' when tungsten is not available. I doubt that the point system is CM is set up to handle this, but without this critical ammo tackling a German heavy tank is real hard with the same number of points in US AFVs.

I will tell you one thing I do know: Playing a US armored force armed with M4s is harder than a smaller, better-equipped German force. It is just easier to coordinate the few and better armed and armored tanks that the Germans generally field. But should the points for US tanks be lowered because of this? I don't know...

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Slapdragon]

Well, first -- my plan was not all that special. I had four tank groups:two with Panthers and Hetzers, two with MIV and Marder to simulate a Feb 1945 and set them to leap frog eact other until they double covered two forest breaks heading to a meeting objective while my infantry scampered through the woods through the snow. Plus I had a couple of scouting units to stir up trouble and possibly take a HT column on the flank. His E8s engaged my Hetzers seemingly stupidly positioned after a fast move, my Panthers collected the E8s as they busily shot away. The MKIVs never came into it since they were on flanker ambush.

I think you are right about the cost of the A3 if the German has no heavies and if the board is closed. I like Germans in fog battle now because it becomes a mellee of the lion and the maus with evenly matched MKIV thrown in the middle. Then the points seem right on.

The only counter I have found to the US dilema in open ground is to always buy a Jackson and park it in a hidden spot that can target the hills. In a gun to gun it dies, but it can keep the hills clean for enough time to move forces in.

[Slapdragon]

I should also say I think the random QB are right on -- especially in smaller contest. You get all sorts of funny German units that no one buys otherwise, and you have to make this heap of oddball units work for you -- it can be very fun.

[Guest Pillar]

One word: Bazooka's.

Yes, these wonderful little powerhouses can be VERY deadly when used properly. Buy a good infantry screening force, find the enemy weakpoint and pour through with your zooks for rear hits on german armour. It's worked for me at least. You only need to be within 200m to shoot (I think).

Also, you can buy like 20 bazooka teams for every enemy panther. That speaks for itself.

[Guest Pillar]

Allied tanks are far better at taking out the enemy strongpoints (non-AT or tank). They'll dig out Infantry real quick.

[Slapdragon]

Sure, but for every zook you buy, I can get a check that is really killer and not that much more expensive. Add to that in open terrain a couple of MG42 HMG firing down board and your mass zook get clawed out.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Pillar:

One word: "Bounce".

The US bazooka will generally bounce off the front of the German tanks we are talking about (Tiger, King Tiger, etc. and yes even the front of the Panther). In some cases it will bounce off the sides and rear too!

Now, since you brought it up...what about the panzerschreck? That thing can kill any Sherman and almost any Allied tank out to 200m+ (TWICE the range of the bazooka). So, when you buy your tanks and have 30 pts left over the US gets a marginally effective bazooka for anti-tank work and the Germans get a Sherman killer with twice the range.

As for fortifications, anti-infantry work...not really relevant IMO. If the enemy has armor you won't live long enough to worry about the forts and infantry. Or at least you will be 100% preoccupied with dealing with the enemy armor for a majority of the battle. Or if the other side simply does not have armor to contest the field of battle, then the slightly less effective German AFVs can do the job well enough IMO and they have specialized vehicles that can do the job just as well as the US pt for pt.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-21-2000).]

[Tank Man]

You people act like the Axis and the Allies had the same things in mind when they built tanks. Most Shermans have three MGs on them for a reason, and its not to make other tanks button. Most German tanks have heavy armor and big guns for a reason, and its not to blow up a bigger area where you think the enemy infantry is hiding.

After hearing complaints like this I start to think that these people have never used bazooka or PIAT teams. a PIAT team can take out a King Tiger easily. The Allied player has to realize that it is highly likely that the Axis players tanks will out gun his. So you have to find another way to deal with them. The airborne squads have anti-tank teams, use them. When you have dealt with the Axis tanks then you can roll up your shermans (which I consider anti-infantry when they have 3 machineguns, one being flexible). Another thing, it sounds to me like people use Allied tanks in the way that Axis tanks should be used. Allied tanks are faster and have a faster turret rotation rate than Axis tanks. Allied tanks are agile, Axis tanks are lumbering.

Most Allied tanks can supress entire platoons with MG fire alone. German tanks have a maximum of 2 MGs, and only bow and coaxials. But the German tanks will eat allied tanks.

Recognize why shermans are more expensive and you will do a lot better with them.

[Priest]

I have to agree with TankMan. I play allied infantry all the time and my opponents fear my AT teams much more than my tanks when it comes to AT duty. I think I have about a 5:1 AT team to Tank kill ratio (meaning I kill an enemy tank 5 times with an AT team for everytime I kill one with a tank).

------------------

Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb

-Priest

[Guest Scott Clinton]

You guys are forcing into a defense of the title of this thread...something I have already stated I am not sure I agree full with. But...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>After hearing complaints like this I start to think that these people have never used bazooka or PIAT teams. a PIAT team can take out a King Tiger easily.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

EASILY?!? Really? I don't think a PIAT can "take out" any German tank "easily"!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Allied player has to realize that it is highly likely that the Axis players tanks will out gun his. So you have to find another way to deal with them. The airborne squads have anti-tank teams, use them. When you have dealt with the Axis tanks then you can roll up your shermans (which I consider anti-infantry when they have 3 machineguns, one being flexible). Another thing, it sounds to me like people use Allied tanks in the way that Axis tanks should be used. Allied tanks are faster and have a faster turret rotation rate than Axis tanks. Allied tanks are agile, Axis tanks are lumbering.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, are you mixing US airborne infantry with US Army tanks? Generally the airborne had few tanks in their support... But ignoring this possibly gamey mix of forces: None of what you say will have a snowballs chance in hell of helping a US player on any 'open' map (IMO).

As for the allied tank advantage of a faster turret: How is this going to help when engagement ranges rarely drop below 500m (on an open map)? btw what is the turret speed of the most popular US tank destroyer the M10? Ahhh...but that is NOT the most popular US TD in PBEM is it? No, the Jackson is. And we all know why.

As for the Allied tank advantage of agility Vs the "lumbering" Axis tanks...what exactly is the difference between the speed of a M4a1 and a Panther? Sorry, I am at work but IIRCC it is a whooping 2mph! You could of course spend 20-30% more points for a M4a3 with the same gun and practically the same armor, that way you can take one less tank and be 33% closer to the Panther when he blows your turret off as you sprint across the 'plains of Germany'.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Recognize why shermans are more expensive and you will do a lot better with them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or more aptly recognize that if you are on an 'open' map you had better be taking air strikes Vs German heavy tanks (and pray they hit!) or you can kiss your Shermans good-by.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-21-2000).]

[Abbott]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tank Man:

You people act like the Axis and the Allies had the same things in mind when they built tanks. Most Shermans have three MGs on them for a reason, and its not to make other tanks button. Most German tanks have heavy armor and big guns for a reason, and its not to blow up a bigger area where you think the enemy infantry is hiding.

After hearing complaints like this I start to think that these people have never used bazooka or PIAT teams. a PIAT team can take out a King Tiger easily. The Allied player has to realize that it is highly likely that the Axis players tanks will out gun his. So you have to find another way to deal with them. The airborne squads have anti-tank teams, use them. When you have dealt with the Axis tanks then you can roll up your shermans (which I consider anti-infantry when they have 3 machineguns, one being flexible). Another thing, it sounds to me like people use Allied tanks in the way that Axis tanks should be used. Allied tanks are faster and have a faster turret rotation rate than Axis tanks. Allied tanks are agile, Axis tanks are lumbering.

Most Allied tanks can supress entire platoons with MG fire alone. German tanks have a maximum of 2 MGs, and only bow and coaxials. But the German tanks will eat allied tanks.

Recognize why shermans are more expensive and you will do a lot better with them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that was subtle

[Spook]

On an incidental note, I will state from an ongoing PBEM that one of my US bazooka teams was able to kill a King Tiger. BUT....only after three shots, all at the Tiger's flank at app. 100 meters range, and with the first shot hitting but still bouncing off the turret's side.

(It was a crack-quality 'zook team, too. They earned their pay in this game.)

The 'zooks are effective in ambush, but not a sure bet.

[dalem]

Tankman pinned it. The Sherman is good for beating on infantry, the German Panther and up are great for beating on armor. Confuse the roles and the pillars of smoke start reaching for the sky.

Given no options but to use the wrong tool for the wrong job, then best be lucky.

-dale

[Guest Scott Clinton]

dalem:

And what is the right tool for the US to use for anti-tank work on an open map???

The Germans have weapon systems to tackle infantry that are as good as any the US fields on any type of map and we all agree they can buy the best anti-tank weapons.

So, I say again: What is the right "tool" to used against the Germans on an open map (othre than airpower of course)? Or do you guys really think that the bazooka is the US's answer on an open map.

And on a heavily wooded map...I say the Germans just about break even...esp. when you consider each and every squad (practically) they have carries a Sherman killer.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-21-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton:

dalem:

And what is the right tool for the US to use for anti-tank work on an open map???

The Germans have weapon systems to tackle infantry that are as good as any the US fields on any type of map and we all agree they can buy the best anti-tank weapons.

So, I say again: What is the right "tool" to used against the Germans on an open map (othre than airpower of course)? Or do you guys really think that the bazooka is the US's answer on an open map.

And on a heavily wooded map...I say the Germans just about break even...esp. when you consider each and every squad (practically) they have carries a Sherman killer.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scott, are you asking for a hostorical answer or a practical answer?

Historically, it would be air power and artillery.

Practically, (in CM) it would be the M36 Jackson, and the M18 Hellcat. If you are attacking, then you had better manuever, because there are no Allied tanks that can go toe to toe with the German vehicles larger than the MkIV.

I have ahd success just keeping my speed high. It is hard to hit a fast moving vehicle at moderate to long range, even on a open map.

I do agree that the M4(76) Shermans are over-priced compared to Panthers.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Jeff:

Yes, practically we are discussing CM. If this was based on real life then I would get 4-5 Shermans (at least) for each Panther and it would be a non-issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have ahd success just keeping my speed high. It is hard to hit a fast moving vehicle at moderate to long range, even on a open map.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As have I, but not on anything that I would call 'even' on an open map.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>no Allied tanks that can go toe to toe with the German vehicles larger than the MkIV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that is my point. Airpower is too random to count on IMHO, and frankly I feel a little gamey fielding a force of a half dozen Jacksons.

I don't know, but I seem to be 'talking myself' into agreeing with Slapdragon more and more.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-21-2000).]

[Ari Maenpaa]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton:

Or more aptly recognize that if you are on an 'open' map you had better be taking air strikes Vs German heavy tanks (and pray they hit!) or you can kiss your Shermans good-by.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If BTS compensates Sherman's cost for 'open maps' wouldn't that mean an unbalancing bonus at 'close quarters maps' with low visibility?

Just a thought.

Ari

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Ari:

Very good point and one of the main reasons I can't say I am 100% convinced that the point values for Shermans should be lowered.

All I can say is to restate what I said above about 'close quarter maps':

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And on a heavily wooded map...I say the Germans just about break even...esp. when you consider each and every squad (practically) they have carries a Sherman killer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi all,

This is an interesting disccusion.

I think that pretty much everybody is right on this one. The reason why is that various different situations produce very different results. The thing is that unit costs can not be variable depending on these conditions, so sometimes things seem to be too expensive and other times not expensive enough. There is no easy way around this.

Scott is correct in particular about the open battlefield. It was a reall WWII commander's worst nightmare if the flyboys in the sky were busy with something else and the artillery men were busy beating up some other position in someone else's sector. One only has to look at some of the battles around Caen or Falaise to see what one or two German tanks could do to dozens of Shermans. And that is a reality that CM reflects, just as the power of something like the KT is largely reduced in close in fighting.

So pricing for units is based on their TOTAL capabilities, not any single one. Sure, the Sherman Easy Eight is dead meat if it runs up against a Panther at 2000m from the front in open fields. But in closer ranges the Panther can be readily defeated by even the lowly 57mm AT gun.

As has also been pointed out, the ability to purchase AFVs also depends, in large part, on the type of force you selected to have. A company sized mechanized force can have a platoon of Shermans in support if the points are large enough, otherwise the player is not going to have as many vehicles.

Anyhoo... just more food for thought!

Steve

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Yep, just be wary of that PBEM challenge from somebody that sets up a amored battle with light trees; small hills; daylight; clear and then insists on playing the Germans on defence while no air power is allowed.

Sound crazy? Keep playing, you'll meet them.

oh, just to specify, that is not Slapdragon. He beat me fair and square.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-21-2000).]