StuGs and the price of them in QB

[Larsen]

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.

[Flock]

I couldn't agree more.  I have frequent QB PBEM games and I believe I have purchased a Stug III once. You are just much better off with a mkIV as you get  a traversing turret with lots more ammo. I have always thought it odd that the Stug is so expensive, in the real world they were built because they were a cheaper alternative to a tank or have I been reading the wrong books?

[Redwolf]

The pricing of having a turret went from overpriced in CMx1 to underpriced in CMx2.

The Pz IV is cheap because of the 50mm thick front turret. But as you can see that seems to be overvalued in the context of the typical combined arms fight.

Wouldn't it be great if we could load our own price list as a XML file?

[Larsen]

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!

[Redwolf]

1 hour ago, Larsen said:

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.

The gun, or more precisely the anti-armor performance thereof, weights very heavily in pricing. The short 75mm of the Sherman has problems against 80mm flat armor and that lowers the price quite a bit. Not that I agree with the pricing, just explaining.

If you want to talk mispriced units, look at the dirt cheap anti-aircraft unarmored halftracks. Spending the same money on 2 Shermans and a bunch of FlaK trucks will leave the shermans without a chance of winning in a direct firefight. 

[Larsen]

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.

 

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by Larsen

[Bulletpoint]

I raised a similar thread recently, maybe you will find it interesting. It's focused on the PzIV, but compares with Shermans and StuGs too.

 

[Larsen]

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.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Larsen

[womble]

My woolly recollection is that the standard M4's short 75 does have difficulty penetrating the glacis of the StuG III, even at relatively close range, whereas the StuG's gun has no trouble whatsoever with any aspect of a Sherman's armour at the same ranges. So (assuming my memory is both accurate and representative) if you can control the initiative of the armour fight, StuGs are worth buying.

Probably worth some controlled testing to see where the StuG's advantage pertains, and get an idea of how often it could be made to apply in a QB.

[Larsen]

@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.

[womble]

1 hour ago, Larsen said:

@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.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, here. Or at least shade your definition. Yes, one of a tank's jobs is to be a moving pillbox and an assault gun, throwing HE at pesky enemy who won't be dissuaded by MG fire. They can outgun any infantry weapon and are (if you don't push too close) immune to anything the enemy pTruppen can do. But the other job of a Tank (specifically, rather than a TD, or an assault gun) is to "support the infantry" by protecting them from the enemy's  armour. Largely by blowing them up. In conceptual terms, the two have equal weight for a tank. TDs are meant to take out armour, primarily, and assault guns are principally to facilitate the advance of infantry against static threats. The M4's fast turret is only useful for vs-armour duels, and is entirely unimportant for giving the gropos a leg up (unless you're cavalier with the things and put them in ranges where they're in danger from infantry AT).

Yes, Shermans spent more time supporting their dogface little brothers, but the ability to shut down the enemy armour was in toto as important, and by June '44, it lacked a little in that regard (hence Sherman 76s, Fireflys, M10s and so on). Unless you want to call a "vanilla" M4 an "assault gun"... If "supporting the infantry" was the primary consideration, you'd've had much lighter-armoured things with 105mm HE-chuckers and more MGs coming off the design boards, but "being there to kill Panzers" was job A to "breaking infantry resistance" as job 1.

The StuG III is a wierd duck by that point in the war. It's "supposed" to be an assault gun, but the Germans aren't conducting many infantry assaults at all, let alone on prepared fortifications, but it's got decent frontal armour, and a good, tank-killing 75, so it's probably better considered a TD. If you can find a long (>500m) fire lane on your QB map, it can totally kill the bejazus out of any Sherman 75s trying to boost their infantry along that axis... I guess it depends what size of map you like to use for your QBs.

But if you want a cheap HE-chucker, the StuG ain't it... PzIV is probably betterer.

[Larsen]

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.

[KGBoy]

I think pricing favours the Allies at all levels. I would be curious to know what the ratios of QB wins are for Axis vs. Allies? Or even with more detail Commonwealth versus Axis or US versus Axis? Whoever wins playing Axis has done a great job. Whereas a tactical win from the Allies is a meh.

[Placebo]

Very interesting topic.  I would love to see the logic in how BF work out the price for tanks. I suspect they have a formula but during beta testing when people are using them in different situations there is a lot of “that tank is way OP for the price, it needs to cost more” and it evolves to be what we end up with now.  I am at the point where I go with whatever interests me at the time, so do not get too hung up on the cost, but it does grate sometimes as the axis that I know I am paying a lot more the the US for their tanks (whether it’s fair or not)!

[womble]

2 hours ago, Larsen said:

You want to use StuGs as TDs which they were not and they are mediocre in that role. There are better options. 

For the same price? You really don't interest me enough to fire it up and dig out Jagdpanzer prices... It's not that I want to use them that way, it's how they end up getting used, both in-game and historically, because of the strategic stances of the forces involved at that time of the war. And they're not "mediocre"; they can kill most Allied tanks (even most Allied tank marks; there were a lot fewer Churchills than Shermans and Cromwells in Normandy) and can stand up to the most common opponent at mid-or-greater ranges. As Assault guns, they're mediocre by that time in the war, having a low ammo count.

Sherman 76s aren't as good as 75s in the HE-chucker role. But having some to engage the enemy armour, like a proper tank should be able to is a good idea.

Unit pricing is a really tricky art. There a bunch of assumptions that have to be made, and if they're different to yours, you'll disagree with the pricing. Thus it will ever be. And BFC aren't going to enter into any discussion about it. And we're not going to be able to do anything about it. It is what it is. Buy those "Better options", and stop worrying about the missing "common weapon" in the artificial arena of a QB.

[Larsen]

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.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Stugs were way under priced in CM1. Are they over priced in CM2? Maybe a little, but like everything else it depends. I have used Stugs and had them used against me in Rule of 75 QBs on a 2x2 km map. They got the better of the exchanges with Sherman 75s. 150 points? A Panzer II is 155 points, a Panzer III 188.

[MikeyD]

I recall reading a German AAR from Normandy that said StuGs in bocage country were a tactical failure. The roof-mounted sight and low gun meant they were as likely to shoot into the terrain in front of a vehicle as shoot the enemy. They were exactly the wrong sort of vehicle for the theater. 

[Larsen]

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.

[Vanir Ausf B]

2 hours ago, KGBoy said:

I would be curious to know what the ratios of QB wins are for Axis vs. Allies? Or even with more detail Commonwealth versus Axis or US versus Axis? Whoever wins playing Axis has done a great job. Whereas a tactical win from the Allies is a meh.

 

NORMANDY

 

Battle Size	Allied Victories	Draws	German Victories
Tiny	12	7	11
Small	61	22	69
Medium	274	77	251
Large	75	34	106
Huge	11	2	21

 

FINAL BLITZKRIEG

 

Battle Size	Allied Victories	Draws	German Victories
Tiny	0	1	0
Small	1	0	2
Medium	11	2	8
Large	13	5	15
Huge	0	0	0

 

RED THUNDER

 

Battle Size	Soviet Victories	Draws	German Victories
Tiny	1	0	1
Small	6	2	3
Medium	47	5	43
Large	51	18	60
Huge	6	2	7

 

From The Blitz ladder. No breakdown by US/Commonwealth, unfortunately.

[Larsen]

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

[Vanir Ausf B]

47 minutes ago, Larsen said:

Oh, common on. M4 is 175.

The cheapest 75mm M4 I can find is 190. They go up to 232 for the later "wet" models.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Vanir Ausf B

[Larsen]

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?

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

Ah, I was using individual unit prices.

I think they're reasonable but I wouldn't mind seeing the Stugs 20 or 30 points cheaper. I'd rather have a Stug than a Pz IV against Sherman 75s but not Sherman 76s. Similar to how Panthers are totally worth it against Sherman 76s and T-34/85s but are probably overpriced vs. Fireflies and IS-2s. The only tanks in the game that are unequivocally "balanced" have guaranteed gun or armor overmatch against any possible opposition. 

One thing to remember is that QB unit prices are determined by formula, so any change in Stug pricing would presumably affect all similar type units at a minimum.

[Larsen]

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.