Jump to content

StuGs and the price of them in QB


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Larsen said:

Comparing tanks based on tank vs tank battles is just plain wrong.

Aren't you being a little dogmatic about this? 🤪 And by a little I mean a lot.

Personally, when picking tanks in a QB all I care about is their tank killing ability. Once the enemy armor is gone his infantry can be dealt with in any number of ways. Killing infantry is easy. Killing tanks is hard. In my humble opinion ☺️

This is why BFC uses a formula to determine unit prices instead of someone's opinion on what a Stug is worth. That method brings it's own set of baggage and frankly I would prefer a system that didn't even use purchase points but you go to war with the QB system you have, not the QB system you wish you had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

This is why BFC uses a formula to determine unit prices instead of someone's opinion on what a Stug is worth. That method brings it's own set of baggage and frankly I would prefer a system that didn't even use purchase points but you go to war with the QB system you have, not the QB system you wish you had.

I am leaning this way. I am trying to work out game rules I can live with. The whole purchase game is a big headache.

1.Let the AI select everything. Run a couple each and pick 1 with your opponent. 

2. Maybe 2 games played together and each takes the other side in the 2nd.

 

And thanks for the link @Vanir Ausf B

Edited by KGBoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Larsen said:

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "would prefer a system that didn't even use purchase points"

Players pick a task force template of unit types then the game assigns specific units to it. Doesn't matter. People would complain about getting screwed by the random number generator.

2 hours ago, Larsen said:

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.

It depends, but I would consider Stugs a little better than Pz IVs and roughly on par with Sherman 76s. They have 27 rounds of HE. If you can use all 27 you're doing good. The later Stugs have a coaxial machine gun and a remote controlled machine gun.

2 hours ago, Larsen said:

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?

Yeah, maybe. IIRC  a .50 caliber machine gun can kill a Marder so I avoid them.

2 hours ago, Larsen said:

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.

I once asked Steve to put me in charge of unit prices, told him I'd accept all the heat for it. He was nice enough not to let me 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Players pick a task force template of unit types then the game assigns specific units to it.

I like this idea :)

7 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Doesn't matter. People would complain about getting screwed by the random number generator.

I think what most people complain about with the auto-force selector is not so much getting a sub-optimal force selection as getting a force that's completely bonkers. IE having to fight with 20 jeeps and an FO with no assets.

If people really want to complain about random number generators, there are plenty of random numbers in the game already, about spotting and hitting targets.. which is fine. We generally accept that there's both good and bad luck in the game, so why should it be different with the force selection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On topic, I agree with Larsen that StuGs have an awkward price point and that they are very rarely used in the game, whereas in reality, they were much more common than Panthers.

But maybe that's just my impression? Are there any experienced players out there who buy StuGs for quick battles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive had a battle recently where i bought 5 stug. Against 75 shermans they were tougher than p4 would have been. 

The problem is i could have had 6 pz4 or 4 panther with vet instead. Both choices would have performed better. The panthers massively so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, holoween said:

Ive had a battle recently where i bought 5 stug. Against 75 shermans they were tougher than p4 would have been. 

Definitely. Panzer IVs are pretty much glorified armoured cars at this point in the war.

1 hour ago, holoween said:

The problem is i could have had 6 pz4 or 4 panther with vet instead. Both choices would have performed better. The panthers massively so.

Agreed on the Panthers, but not on the PzIV. Against basic Shermans, I would much rather have 5 StuGs than 6 Panzer IV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To summarize from the preceding posts:

1) 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.

2) StuGs have an awkward price point and that they are very rarely used in the game, whereas in reality, they were much more common than Panthers.

3) ...bought 5 stug. Against 75 shermans they were tougher than p4 would have been.  The problem is i could have had 6 pz4 or 4 panther with vet instead. Both choices would have performed better. The panthers massively so.

4) 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.

5) BFC uses a formula to determine unit prices instead of someone's opinion on what a Stug is worth.

Am no historian, but I do know that Stugs were manufactured to be cheaper than turreted vehicles and were more common.  If Stugs are rarely used in scenarios cos of the value for money issue, then, it does seem that something is off.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

Am no historian, but I do know that Stugs were manufactured to be cheaper than turreted vehicles and were more common.  If Stugs are rarely used in scenarios cos of the value for money issue, then, it does seem that something is off.

It's not about the value for money, but about the value for points. And it's not about their use in scenarios, but in QBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Larsen said:

Templates is an interesting idea.

 

How would that be structured?Agreed upon battle groups? So asks the confused one.

22 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

It's not about the value for money, but about the value for points. And it's not about their use in scenarios, but in QBs.

Is there ever been a poll to see what type of game QB most play? ME I would assume.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

18 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Agreed on the Panthers, but not on the PzIV. Against basic Shermans, I would much rather have 5 StuGs than 6 Panzer IV.

While the stugs tend to get destroyed less quickly they lose combat ability just as quickly. 6 pz4 gives more tactical flexibility. 6pz4 will also sit at higher veterancy.

So overall the stugs are better if fighting oponents up to basic shermans at ranges above 600m. Otherwise more pz4 or fewer panthers are better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, holoween said:

 

While the stugs tend to get destroyed less quickly they lose combat ability just as quickly.

You mean they lose combat ability by getting their optics and gun barrels shot?

15 minutes ago, holoween said:

6 pz4 gives more tactical flexibility. 6pz4 will also sit at higher veterancy.

So overall the stugs are better if fighting oponents up to basic shermans at ranges above 600m. Otherwise more pz4 or fewer panthers are better.

Makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

You mean they lose combat ability by getting their optics and gun barrels shot?

Makes sense.

Barrel, optics and firecontroll.

A mobility kill also means a stug is usualy useless while a tank can still somewhqt work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

It's not about the value for money, but about the value for points. And it's not about their use in scenarios, but in QBs.

It is a bit about scenarios, too. Victory points awarded for knockouts in scenarios are based on unit value.

So driving around overpriced hamsterfahrzeuge hurts you even if you didn't pay for them.

Edited by Redwolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

It's not about the value for money, but about the value for points. And it's not about their use in scenarios, but in QBs.

I understand that.  But, I thought we were comparing RL numbers/probability of appearance on the battlefield.  In the game "points" = "money".  The cost in CM2 (ie: the % of times people choose a Stug for a QB or scenario) should match RL is the way I wuz thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

I understand that.  But, I thought we were comparing RL numbers/probability of appearance on the battlefield.  In the game "points" = "money".  The cost in CM2 (ie: the % of times people choose a Stug for a QB or scenario) should match RL is the way I wuz thinking.

You would think this would extend to battle parameters also. Axis in RL was looking for a standoff by this point whereas Allies were still looking to win entirely. That is not modelled in QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

In RL a Panther tank was only slightly more expensive than a Panzer IV

Then why didn't the Germans simply build all Panthers?  Seems that there were other RL factors that made the PzV more expensive like complexity, use of valuable materials, expert manpower...  who knows?  

Am a big proponent of "design for effect".  The sim should simulate RL as much as possible - and that is not always amenable to accounting principles and number crunching.  On the CW forums apparently a very accurate map allowed one side to fire at enemy units in their set-up zones - it doesn't seem to be the designer's intent.  He made the map "realistic" - but that meant it didn't work as a scenario.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That is my point. StuG could be a good vehicle for a combat if I could get enough of them in a QB. The way they are priced right now you need very special maps to buy them over Pz IVs. And even then I suspect you better off buying JPz IV (20 points more with  better front armor and more HE load).

Whatever formula BFC is using to price them does not price them right at the moment. And also the same formula underprices M4s a lot. and I mean a lot.

Edited by Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...