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

[Bulletpoint]

3 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:

Assuming that all tanks have the common rarity cost you also could fill an entire list with tanks, correct?

Assuming that none of them have zero rarity cost.

Yes, if all tanks had "Common" rarity, you could buy all the tanks you wanted.

Let's say you set up a QB with 2000 purchase points. That gives you also 2000 rarity points.

Now you want to buy a "Common" rarity level tank. It costs 200 purchase points and also 200 rarity points. You buy ten of those tanks: 2000 purchase points and 2000 rarity points, which means you spent exactly all your points.

However, if you wanted to buy one rare unit, that would cost, say, 200 purchase points and 400 rarity points, that would mean you had to buy one fewer of the "Common" tanks.

Edited January 7, 2021 by Bulletpoint

[Lethaface]

3 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:

Combat Mission 1 (CMBB and CMAK) had the ability to set QB point allotments. For example, if you had 1,000 points to spend you could do:

Infantry 50% | Armor 20% | Support 30%
500 points     | 200 points |__ 300 points

These numbers were adjustable by the player making the QB and this allowed you to create a mixed force that leaned more heavily on infantry for both sides. In CM2 they did not do that and instead we got the very simple (too simple) infantry | armor | mixed. Which is really a rather unpleasant step back.

That would be a better way to restrict points for tanks imo.

 

3 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:

Question?

I don't have any of the CM ww2 games installed at the moment but is LethaFace's contention even a problem? In a QB is it possible to not be able to buy armor due to rarity?

My gut feeling is that its not but it would force you to take more common tanks. Which again means that loosening the restriction ought to provide a solution.

No at the moment it is not a problem, but if all tanks would cost rarity points it might be a problem. My point being that rarity is the question of how rare something is among it's peers, given a certain formation and time period. So for the standard US infantry division, a standard outfitted rifle platoon shouldn't have a rarity cost. 
Neither should the tanks that usually 'man' tank formations. That's not what rarity is for, at least imo.

So my point is that if you want to limit purchase points for tanks, limit the purchase points and not (ab)use the rarity points for such outcomes. Just my 2cts though

Edited January 7, 2021 by Lethaface

[Pelican Pal]

2 hours ago, Lethaface said:

That would be a better way to restrict points for tanks imo.

Yes, I sorely miss that feature. Given that we only have rarity currently I am looking to it as the only real fix. We QBs have been languishing for more than a decade at this point and have yet to meet the features of CM1.

 

2 hours ago, Lethaface said:

No at the moment it is not a problem, but if all tanks would cost rarity points it might be a problem. My point being that rarity is the question of how rare something is among it's peers, given a certain formation and time period. So for the standard US infantry division, a standard outfitted rifle platoon shouldn't have a rarity cost. 

My question was to ascertain whether it would in fact prevent you from buying armor.  @Bulletpoint's response it appears that you currently could fill out an entire QB with armor even if all that armor had a rarity cost. This can be tested because a sufficient amount of armor does in-fact have a rarity cost.

Actually I just realized I do have CMRT installed.

Under STANDARD I can make a few lists for both sides exclusively with rarity cost tanks and points run out before rarity. Obviously there are other combinations where that is not true (IS-1s for example).  But I am able to complete armor lists.

Pushing rarity to LOOSE and I have even more permutations of rarity only armor lists. There are some (like an entire battalion of Panther Ds) that are out of reach.

While I appreciate you have worries given the testing of the current system I cannot find any substantiation of your worries. It seems clear that were a low rarity cost appended to all armor (say 50-100pts at standard) then you could make full armor lists of varying vehicle types.

[Lethaface]

12 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:

While I appreciate you have worries given the testing of the current system I cannot find any substantiation of your worries. It seems clear that were a low rarity cost appended to all armor (say 50-100pts at standard) then you could make full armor lists of varying vehicle types.

Worried is a large word for it.

To my knowledge the discussion is about whether changing the game by slapping a bunch of rarity points to each tank would be a good way to limit the amount of tanks in battle. I just happen to think that it's not a good way to design an effect like that. There would be a change needed regardless, so if a change is made I'd rather see them make the proper change and introduce a limit for purchase points attributed to tanks/etc. The rarity option feels like a hack.

And of course you could make sure to keep the rarity points attributed to each vehicle so low that it will never be higher than the purchase cost, but than it won't actually really limit tanks . 

I think that's enough substantiation for my opinion ;-).

[Bulletpoint]

32 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

And of course you could make sure to keep the rarity points attributed to each vehicle so low that it will never be higher than the purchase cost, but than it won't actually really limit tanks . 

If you only went with infantry and "Common" tanks, there would be no limit. But once you start adding units and assets with higher rarity cost, spending those points on standard tanks would limit things. For example, buying artillery with rarity cost of 800 points would limit the number of tanks you could bring.

But yes, I agree that I would also prefer to have a simple slider to decide percentages of infantry and armour.

This thread was intended to be about the regular points costs, not rarity.

Edited January 7, 2021 by Bulletpoint

[Vanir Ausf B]

Something that gets ignored is that while the point value of units is static across time and is agnostic of opposition the actual relative value of a unit can vary considerably depending on those factors. For example:

On 12/10/2020 at 4:12 AM, Bulletpoint said:

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

3 x Panzer IV or 2 x Panthers?

In the summer of '44 against the US? The Panthers all day every day. But against the British it gets more complicated. Facing anything but Fireflies I'd still take the Panthers, but against Fireflies I'd rather have the 3 Pz IVs. And in a QB you will almost always see Fireflies.

 

[Vacillator]

24 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Facing anything but Fireflies I'd still take the Panthers, but against Fireflies I'd rather have the 3 Pz IVs.

That's an interesting comment. Do you mean you will likely lose a straight front-on fight against a Firefly so having 3 tanks instead of 2 gives more options for manoeuvre / flanking etc.? 

I'm also thinking that where there's one or more Fireflies there will probably be several other lesser gunned varieties hanging around.

[Vanir Ausf B]

30 minutes ago, Vacilllator said:

That's an interesting comment. Do you mean you will likely lose a straight front-on fight against a Firefly so having 3 tanks instead of 2 gives more options for manoeuvre / flanking etc.? 

Basically. At typical combat ranges the Panther's gun is overkill but you're still paying for it and the 17-pounder is a serious threat to the Panther, even frontally.

30 minutes ago, Vacilllator said:

I'm also thinking that where there's one or more Fireflies there will probably be several other lesser gunned varieties hanging around.

In reality, for sure. In a QB? Not so sure.

[Freyberg]

Another very unscientific test.

1943, same as before (M4 early v. PzIVG)
10min shootout. No orders given beyond setup.
This time with limited cover (CMFI tree-type D (small, low tree), one tree per action square, tanks positioned just inside the treeline, line staggered at 1-2 action squares). Damp ground (last time was 'dry' so there was a lot of dust)

~ 200m

• LIGHT COVER, starting buttoned
  PzIV: 4 kills
  Sherman 1 kill
  (winner: PzIV)
   
• LIGHT COVER, starting unbuttoned
  PzIVs 2 kills
  Sherman 2 kills + 2 bad crew kills
  (winner: Sherman)

~ 500m

• LIGHT COVER, starting buttoned
  PzIV: 1 kill
  Sherman: nil
  (winner: PzIV)
   
• LIGHT COVER, starting unbuttoned
  PzIV: 2 kills
  Sherman: 1 kills + 1 dismount
  (draw)

~ 750m

• LIGHT COVER, starting buttoned
  PzIV: nil
  Sherman: 1 kill
  (winner: Sherman - some crew casualties each side)
   
• LIGHT COVER, starting unbuttoned
  PzIV: 2 kills
  Sherman: 1 kill, 1 dismount
  (draw: some crew casualties each side)
   
• OPEN TERRAIN, starting unbuttoned
  PzIV: 6 kills (in 3 minutes)
  Shermans: 1 kill, 2 dismounts
  (clear winner: PzIV)

~1000m

• LIGHT COVER, starting buttoned
  PzIV: 0 kills
  Sherman: 1 kill
  (winner: Sherman)
   
• LIGHT COVER, starting unbuttoned
  PzIV: 4 kills
  Sherman: 1 kill
  (clear winner: PzIV)
   
• OPEN, unbuttoned
  PzIV: 5 kills
  Shermans 2 kills, 1 mostly killed crew (stil manned), 2 dismounts
  (draw...?
  1 functioning tank each at end - most of the action in the first 2 minutes - then they buttoned up and couldn't spot each other)

~1500m

• LIGHT COVER, starting buttoned
  PzIV: 2 kills
  Sherman 1 kill, 1 dismount
  (draw: a few crew kills each side)
   
• LIGHT COVER, starting unbuttoned
  PzIV: 3 kills
  Sherman: 1 kill
  (winner: PzIV
  both teams spotted very quickly, Pz got the range sooner, 3 Shermans killed to one PzIV in 2 minutes, no more kills once buttoned up)
   
• OPEN TERRAIN, unbuttoned
  PzIV: 3 kills, 1 dismount, 1 severe damage
  Shermans 3 kills, 2 dismounts, 1 gun damage (Axis team out of action)
  (winner: Sherman
  Within 2 minutes, each down to one functioning tank each

 

PzIV: 6 wins (and more decisive wins)
Sherman: 4 wins
4 draws

What did I learn?
1) Buttoning tanks and using them at close range is a mug's game.
2) The two tanks are very closely matched, but the PzIV has an edge overall (especially unbuttoned). Is it enough of an edge to account for the point differential? Who knows....
3) Running little tests is fun, but running statistically significant, large tests would be like work, so this probably proves nothing

 

[Drifter Man]

I agree that the Pz IV is too expensive for how vulnerable it is. I can buy Pz IV for a game - in fact I think that Panthers are boring and I look for excuses to avoid them - but when doing so I feel I am shooting myself in the leg.

The Allied player needs some sort of insurance that he will not face a tank he cannot defeat, hence 76mm/17pdr vehicles appear often in QB. The German player, especially when defending, can anticipate this and choose lesser equipment to outnumber his opponent, who wasted points on overgunned (but still vulnerable) tanks. The Allied player still has no choice - an invincible tank blocking the map can cost him the battle from the start. As said here earlier, use house rules if you want to avoid these problems. Of course, house rules do not address QB pricing.

@Freyberg I'm running AFV duel tests these days - 1000+ duels per each scenario and over 60 scenarios completed so far. Only Pz IV vs Pz IV at 600 meters for now, because I am interested first in how the conditions of the match affect the result, independently of the parameters of the vehicle: hatches open/closed, vehicle moving/stationary, different kinds of terrain and foliage. But that's for another topic. I will report when it's ready 

[Freyberg]

4 minutes ago, Drifter Man said:

I'm running AFV duel tests these days - 1000+ duels per each scenario and over 60 scenarios completed so far.

I admire your commitment to good statistical methodology and very much look forward to your results

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Every time I read this thread, I recall how often JasonC cited US and British tankers outshooting German crews on a regular basis after D Day. Despite the popular opinion that German tankers were all supermen, by the second half of 44 and all of 45, the typical PzIV or StG crew weren't anything to write home about.

I think the crux of how BFC approached it is that if you look at Regular/Veteran US crews versus Green/Regular German crews, the points will be pretty even, as will the results.

[Lethaface]

13 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

If you only went with infantry and "Common" tanks, there would be no limit. But once you start adding units and assets with higher rarity cost, spending those points on standard tanks would limit things. For example, buying artillery with rarity cost of 800 points would limit the number of tanks you could bring.

But yes, I agree that I would also prefer to have a simple slider to decide percentages of infantry and armour.

This thread was intended to be about the regular points costs, not rarity.

It would further limit the amount of uncommon tanks (and other assets like you state) one can take. But, if a Panther variant would still cost a similar amount of rarity points compared to let's say a Pz IV, you would probably still see the exact same usual suspects in QB's.

I do agree that some purchase point relative comparisons seem not always optimal balanced. Perhaps a Panther should just cost more purchase points. Although that would probably mean some other assets for Axis and Allies also need to become more expensive. And from there continuous tweaks. I think BFC has stated that is the reason they won't be tweaking QB points, unless real oversights are found (like Vanir stated above I think).

Maybe the best solution for this issue is the module for CMFB: Perhings and Comets. 

Edited January 8, 2021 by Lethaface

[Drifter Man]

8 hours ago, Freyberg said:

I admire your commitment to good statistical methodology and very much look forward to your results

Let's do it thoroughly

It is an interesting topic, so I changed my testing schedule. Range is 600 m, both tanks partial hull down (I did not see lower hull hits but they could happen), stationary, on grass, hatches open. 1000 tests each. Vehicles can retreat out of sight if damaged - if successful, neither side wins. This happens often and I should find a way to account for that. To get a win, the opposing crew must bail out or die. It is possible, but rare, for both to "win" - i.e. destroy each other.

M4 Sherman (mid) vs Pz IVG (late): 428:300

M4A3(75)W (early) vs Pz IVH (late): 504:265

Shermans have better chances at this range.

[Lethaface]

12 minutes ago, Drifter Man said:

Let's do it thoroughly

It is an interesting topic, so I changed my testing schedule. Range is 600 m, both tanks partial hull down (I did not see lower hull hits but they could happen), stationary, on grass, hatches open. 1000 tests each. Vehicles can retreat out of sight if damaged - if successful, neither side wins. This happens often and I should find a way to account for that. To get a win, the opposing crew must bail out or die. It is possible, but rare, for both to "win" - i.e. destroy each other.

M4 Sherman (mid) vs Pz IVG (late): 428:300

M4A3(75)W (early) vs Pz IVH (late): 504:265

Shermans have better chances at this range.

That's some impressive test numbers!
One thing that came to my mind is that the M4A3 has better armour compared to the M4, so that might also explain the larger difference in the second test.

[Drifter Man]

10 hours ago, Lethaface said:

That's some impressive test numbers!
One thing that came to my mind is that the M4A3 has better armour compared to the M4, so that might also explain the larger difference in the second test.

Yes, the hull armor is thicker and also of better quality. I think that's the main reason for the difference. The M4A3(75)W is about as expensive as the Pz IVH - 232 points, while the M4 costs only 190 points. In turn, Pz IVH has a better gun than Pz IVG (L/48 instead of L/43), but costs about the same as the older variant (245 points Pz IVG late, 248 points Pz IVH)

At this range, Sherman can withstand upper hull hits, so the Pz IV needs to hit the turret to be effective. On the other hand, practically any hit on the Pz IV will penetrate. Also, Sherman can spray Pz IV with the M2HB and force the commander in - which makes spotting more difficult for Germans if they haven't already spotted the Sherman. I think that the match would be more even at closer ranges where the KwK40 can punch through the upper hull plate.

[Bulletpoint]

I don't know if you already saw this, but here is a comparison between the two tanks. It comes to the conclusion that they are roughly equal, and it cites an old British study that comes to the same conclusion.

So the question remains: Why is the Panzer IV so much more expensive in points than the Sherman?