Why is the Panzer IV so expensive to buy in Quick Battles?

[Bulletpoint]

I've been wondering about this for a long time, so here goes: Why are Panzer IVs so expensive in QBs compared to the Allied counterpart, the Sherman?

In late WW2, the Pz IV is a quite weak tank. Its armour is thin, and while it has a better gun than the Sherman, the Sherman is also better armoured, so it still has the upper hand. At close range, it's a matter of who spots and fires first. At longer ranges, the Pz IV can only knock out the Sherman at ranges up to about 1 KM, while the Sherman can knock out the PZ IV at any range.

Yet in CMBN, the Panzer IV H costs 233 points when purchased in a formation (Regular +0), whereas the M4 Sherman costs 175-180 points.

I know the Germans had fewer tanks in general, but as I understand it, the unit purchase price is supposed to reflect the general combat power of the unit, while the historical rarity is taken care of by the rarity cost.

Is there any good reason for this price difference? It seems to me the Panzer IV should be the cheaper unit and the Sherman the more expensive one.

Edited December 8, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[Sgt.Squarehead]

8,553 Panzer IVs of all versions were built during World War II

More than 50,000 Shermans were produced between 1942 and 1945.

Not my emphasis, but I think it makes the point quite well, so I left it. 

[Freyberg]

On 12/9/2020 at 10:45 AM, Bulletpoint said:

...

Yet in CMBN, the Panzer IV H costs 233 points when purchased in a formation (Regular +0), whereas the M4 Sherman costs 175-180 points.

...

The accuracy of the gun makes a huge difference, especially at realistic ranges, but I think you have a point.

For example, the Sd.Kfz. 233 with the short 75mm (128pt/143pt) costs less than a Hellcat (141pt/156pt) - but they're both lightly armoured, fast, open-topped vehicles that can kill each other. That makes the Hellcat (with the more accurate gun) about 10% more expensive than the 75mm AC, whereas the Pz IV is 30% more expensive than the Sherman.

So, a valid question...

Edited December 10, 2020 by Freyberg

[Lethaface]

 

7 hours ago, Freyberg said:

The accuracy of the gun makes a huge difference, especially at realistic ranges, but I think you have a point.

For example, the Sd.Kfz. 233 with the short 75mm (128pt/143pt) costs less than a Hellcat (141pt/156pt) - but they're both lightly armoured, fast, open-topped vehicles that can kill each other. That makes the Hellcat (with the more accurate gun) about 10% more expensive than the 75mm AC, whereas the Pz IV is 30% more expensive than the Sherman.

So, a valid question...

The Hellcat also has a turret and high velocity gun, instead of the stubnose 75 on the 233 which can fire some HEAT shells but it's not really fit for anti armour use. So more reasons that there should be more difference or why it is a valid question.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I don't think the accuracy of the gun matters so much the close ranges where the Pz IV needs to engage the Sherman to have a chance of penetrating the armour. Shermans are quite accurate up to 800 metres, in my experience. Maybe if the Panzer IV has the option to engage at exactly, say 900-1000 metres, there might be a small advantage, but it's very rare to be able to choose exactly what engagement range you want.

[Bulletpoint]

13 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

8,553 Panzer IVs of all versions were built during World War II

More than 50,000 Shermans were produced between 1942 and 1945.

Not my emphasis, but I think it makes the point quite well, so I left it. 

 

On 12/8/2020 at 10:45 PM, Bulletpoint said:

I know the Germans had fewer tanks in general, but as I understand it, the unit purchase price is supposed to reflect the general combat power of the unit, while the historical rarity is taken care of by the rarity cost.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I think one extra spill-over problem from leaving the German players without viable options for medium armour means they get even more incentives to buy more Panthers and Tigers (which are more expensive, but also massively better tanks). And I think many players would rather face a balanced and historically accurate force.

In my view, it would be better to reduce to cost of the Panzer IV to make it more common than heavy tanks in quick battles. A price level of about 175 points - the same as the Sherman - seems right to me. Maybe add a bit of rarity to keep German tank numbers down. This goes for the Panther as well, which currently has 0 rarity cost.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On 12/8/2020 at 9:45 PM, Bulletpoint said:

I know the Germans had fewer tanks in general, but as I understand it, the unit purchase price is supposed to reflect the general combat power of the unit, while the historical rarity is taken care of by the rarity cost.

Fair comment, I actually didn't know this, but I have no interest whatsoever in QBs, so why should I know it?

One of the reasons I'm not interested in QBs is because the Germans can always choose a Tiger, Kingtiger or even a bloody Jagdtiger, just because they fancy one.....And it appears that they almost always do. 

 

[Bulletpoint]

1 minute ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

One of the reasons I'm not interested in QBs is because the Germans can always choose a Tiger, Kingtiger or even a bloody Jagdtiger, just because they fancy one.....And it appears that they almost always do. 

 

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think one extra spill-over problem from leaving the German players without viable options for medium armour means they get even more incentives to buy more Panthers and Tigers (which are more expensive, but also massively better tanks). And I think many players would rather face a balanced and historically accurate force.

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

So how much is a StuG?

Because that was by far the most common German AFV on either front (in the time period of the current CM games).

PS - If you think reducing the price of Panzer IVs will make 'German' players stop buying their beloved ubertanks.....I've got some really nice beachfront property in Birmingham that you might be interested in. 

Edited December 10, 2020 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Bulletpoint]

2 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

So how much is a StuG?

Because that was by far the most common German AFV on either front (in the time period of the current CM games).

PS - If you think reducing the price of Panzer IVs will make 'German' players stop buying their beloved ubertanks.....I've got some really nice beachfront property in Birmingham that you might be interested in. 

Speaking of buying, what would you rather buy, if you played quick battles?

3 x Panzer IV or 2 x Panthers?

Both cost exactly 700 points.

This is a big reason for why we see so many players always go for the German heavies.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Neither, I don't play quick battles. 

I'd rather use what a designer, who has likely put in weeks if not months of testing, has chosen for a carefully designed scenario.....I'm almost as interested in the'stroytelling' aspect of each battle (superbly visualised by @Bud Backer in his comic book series) as I am in the mechanics of the fight.

[Bulletpoint]

StuGs are 287 points when bought as part of a formation. That's also a bit of an awkward price point, because it's again so close to Panther/Tiger price.

3 StuGs or 2 Panthers plus a platoon of supporting infantry? I don't blame people for going for the Panthers.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Neither, I don't play quick battles. 

 

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

what would you rather buy, if you played quick battles?

Please read my posts

I get what you're saying about preferring scenarios. I also played scenarios almost exclusively until quite recently. But QBs against a good opponent can be fun too. I just think that many of the price points of units could be looked at and adjusted, to make more different units viable.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[Sgt.Squarehead]

TBH while I'm a trackhead, I have no idea what metrics are used to judge the points costs.....So I'd prefer not to guess (and as I've said, they're meaningless from my perspective).

As for the three for two question.....As a commander I'd take a good look at the map and mission before choosing, but naturally if conditions favour the deployment of Panthers, that's probably what I'd go for. 

Thing is, that's not a choice commanders get to make as a rule.....You can't just phone sPzAbt.505 and ask to borrow a couple of Tigers because you really don't like the StuGs that your own Regiment uses.

[Bulletpoint]

23 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Thing is, that's not a choice commanders get to make as a rule.....You can't just phone sPzAbt.505 and ask to borrow a couple of Tigers because you really don't like the StuGs that your own Regiment uses.

I agree. That's why I would love to have the option to let the game restrict both players to play with a force selected at random by the game, and for the game to be able to put together such a force in a reasonable way. Then we'd need to play the cards we were dealt, and more types of units would see action.

Edit: I just went back and checked this out in the game... it does seem like automatic force selection has improved a lot since I tried it out years ago. I'm not seeing any weird options like having to attack with a horde of AT guns anymore. However, in a medium size attack, each time I try it, the attacker only gets 1 tank, while the defender gets 2-3. Should be the other way around, it seems.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[AlexUK]

It would be good to get battlefront's input on this - how they work out the scores, on what basis the adjust the scores (I believe they have done in the past).

It is in their interest that the scoring is 'fair' so that QBs of different armies work well - if they are too unbalanced that must affect long term sales by people being turned off QBs.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

As an aside.....The 'complexity step' between placing units in a head to head QB and co-operatively building a 2p Only Scenario is very small, miniscule even!  Just needs a couple of adults to agree on their force composition limits rather than relying on charts & tables. 

The advantage of this 'style choice' is that you can upload your 2p Only Scenario for others to try (minimal Briefings help, Tactical Maps are a luxury IMHO).....This gives third parties the opportunity to comment on and experiment with your concept, perhaps improving it (or maybe even writing AI scripts for one or the other sides).

[Bulletpoint]

55 minutes ago, AlexUK said:

It would be good to get battlefront's input on this - how they work out the scores, on what basis the adjust the scores (I believe they have done in the past).

It is in their interest that the scoring is 'fair' so that QBs of different armies work well - if they are too unbalanced that must affect long term sales by people being turned off QBs.

I'd also like to know, but I wouldn't demand that they show up and explain themselves.. unit points balancing is not an exact science, since there are so many factors involved. But I hope they will see my post as a friendly suggestion to take a closer look at this.

Without continual feedback from players (including the beta testers of course), improving this game would be nearly impossible.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[slysniper]

well, you need to look back many years and all the answers are there in these threads.

But the one that will affect this the most. back in CM1 days, these same type of request were made for different units that did not seem correct in points compared to other units. Bf went in and tweaked the points in the system, that brought on more request or revised request on some of the changes, again adjustments were made.

But you know where this is going, the request just never stop and a perfect balanced point system is never had.

Something is always a better purchase than something else, so then the players start buying said item all the time.

It was a rabbit hole with no end. So BF said, they would not make that mistake again. They came up with a system they liked, and assigned it to the units and we have been living with it ever since.

Other than for a few huge mistakes that were pointed out and corrected. They don't change the point system.

 

So you would be better off as mentioned, coming to a agreement of some type with a opponant and selecting your forces with that in place, its likely the only way you will ever see the Battlefield flooded with Pz4's

 

 

[Artkin]

21 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

8,553 Panzer IVs of all versions were built during World War II

More than 50,000 Shermans were produced between 1942 and 1945.

Not my emphasis, but I think it makes the point quite well, so I left it. 

Rarity points sure

Also I really hate stugs

Edited December 10, 2020 by Artkin

[Sgt.Squarehead]

No disagreement now that I'm aware they exist.....Presumably 'Rarity Points' also reflect things like specific vehicles only being found in specific units?  You can find a StuG in almost any unit, but your choice for Kingtigers is rather more limited.

[Bulletpoint]

44 minutes ago, slysniper said:

Other than for a few huge mistakes that were pointed out and corrected. They don't change the point system.

 

So you would be better off as mentioned, coming to a agreement of some type with a opponant

Actually they do sometimes change points costs. For example, I noticed the cost of the US 60mm mortar offmap element got increased in the 4.0 patch.

[Combatintman]

Wait for the latest Steam discount ... I'll get my coat ...

[Bulletpoint]

Another interesting matchup to consider is that a cheap US armoured car (M8) can kill an expensive German medium tank (Panzer IV) frontally from up to 700m. If firing APCBC, up to 1500m. I don't know which ammo they fire in CM.

But German light armour cannot knock out an Allied medium tank (Sherman) frontally at any range - unless by hollow charge from a short barrel 75, which is very inaccurate.