StuGs and the price of them in QB

[Larsen]

It would be great if BFC gives some explanation behind the current QB pricing of StuGs. It seems with whatever formula they use they tend to overvalue the mediocre armor and undervalue the mobility (turret, speed of rotation) and HE load and MG support that tanks can offer.

[Redwolf]

This seems to be how pricing is weighted for vehicles:

Heavy weight:

- AT performance of main gun (making Sherman 75mm cheap compared to StuG)

- minimum front armor (making Pz IV cheap because of 50mm front turret)

Medium weight:

- HE blast of main gun

- mobility (making Tigers cheap)

Low weight:

- side armor (making Tigers cheap)

 - does it have a turret (turrets used to be expensive in CMx1)

- sidearms (making tanks with multiple MGs cheap)

- ammo supply (making tanks cheap)

 

[Larsen]

I find Tigers to be more mobile than I thought. I guess once you start changing the ground condition to wet or dump you'll probably see quite a few bogged down Tigers. I think Sherman also would suffer.

My point is that having some kind of formula is good as a starting point. After that prices have to be adjusted based on the feedback - how often certain armor is used in QB. If some tanks are never used that means that either they are completely useless or that their price is too high. The alternative is also true - if some tanks are getting picked all the time that means they are too cheap compared to the alternatives.

Edited June 30, 2021 by Larsen

[Flock]

As a matter of interest the RL cost in 1944  was:  StuGIII 82,500 RM;  PzIV 103,462RM;  PzV 117,00RM.

Quite a large difference between the StuGIII and the PzIV and not so much between the PzIV and PzV.

Production numbers were as follows: StuGIII 9,235 all types;  PzIV 8,519 all types (includes AA variants etc'); PzV 6,674 all type

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by Flock

[Larsen]

Interesting numbers. Not sure how they are relevant for what we are discussing here.

Economics of war is out of the scope for CM. 

[Combatintman]

On 6/29/2021 at 2:56 PM, Redwolf said:

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.

No it isn't.  Victory Points for unit objectives are set by the designer in scenarios - if I want to make a Stug Zug 500 VPs , a Tiger Zug 100 VPs and a scout team 5,000 VPs as a destroy/destroy all objective I can.

[Larsen]

Scenarios are irrelevant for unit pricing. In a scenario the designer can give sides whatever units he wants without any regard to the unit pricing.

In QBs the knocked out units award points based on their QB pricing.

[Redwolf]

42 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

No it isn't.  Victory Points for unit objectives are set by the designer in scenarios - if I want to make a Stug Zug 500 VPs , a Tiger Zug 100 VPs and a scout team 5,000 VPs as a destroy/destroy all objective I can.

Errr. If you have a victory point group made up of mixed vehicles, the points are distributed according to the value of the vehicles knocked out and surviving.

It is true as you say that it doesn't matter if you have victory point groups that are homogenous. But mix Pz IV and StuGs in a group then actual losses of StuGs weight more.

[Bulletpoint]

16 hours ago, Redwolf said:

I think what is way more off than StuG vs Pz IV is StuG versus King Tiger.

299 vs 418 purchase points.

Buy 7 Stugs or 5 King Tigers.

The only reason more people don't really notice this is that the KT is severely restricted by rarity.

But yes, going with the "points cost reflects general unit combat power", then 7 StuGs vs 5 King Tigers makes it pretty clear something is not priced right.

[Bulletpoint]

3 hours ago, Redwolf said:

This seems to be how pricing is weighted for vehicles:

Heavy weight:

- AT performance of main gun (making Sherman 75mm cheap compared to StuG)

- minimum front armor (making Pz IV cheap because of 50mm front turret)

Medium weight:

- HE blast of main gun

- mobility (making Tigers cheap)

Low weight:

- side armor (making Tigers cheap)

 - does it have a turret (turrets used to be expensive in CMx1)

- sidearms (making tanks with multiple MGs cheap)

- ammo supply (making tanks cheap)

 

Is this official or your own theory of how it works?

A couple of comments:

• If minimum front armour makes a tank cheap, then why is the Panzer IV so much more expensive than the Sherman?
• Tigers don't really have bad mobility and side armour though.
• Ammo supply shouldn't make tanks cheaper than StuGs when tanks have much more ammo.

[Redwolf]

24 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

The only reason more people don't really notice this is that the KT is severely restricted by rarity.

But yes, going with the "points cost reflects general unit combat power", then 7 StuGs vs 5 King Tigers makes it pretty clear something is not priced right.

Yes, and BTW rarity makes things worse. The only standard vehicles for the Germans are the StuG III and the Panzer IV. Playing with strict rarity effectively limits the German player to 50mm front armor if you don't want to pay for the StuG.

[Redwolf]

20 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Is this official or your own theory of how it works?

A couple of comments:

• If minimum front armour makes a tank cheap, then why is the Panzer IV so much more expensive than the Sherman?
• Tigers don't really have bad mobility and side armour though.
• Ammo supply shouldn't make tanks cheaper than StuGs when tanks have much more ammo.

My theory.

I meant that the pricing thinks that side armor is not important, so that means that Tigers are not being made expensive for their armor.

Likewise, the pricing thinks ammo loadout is no big deal. MGs are no big deal etc.

The Sherman is cheap because the most important pricing point is the main gun's ability to penetrate armor. As you say, its front armor should make it more expensive as it is even within the current pricing scheme.

[Bulletpoint]

13 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

Yes, and BTW rarity makes things worse. The only standard vehicles for the Germans are the StuG III and the Panzer IV.

And the Panther.

Edited June 30, 2021 by Bulletpoint

[Bulletpoint]

18 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

The Sherman is cheap because the most important pricing point is the main gun's ability to penetrate armor.

How come the Firefly is only 240 points then, about the same as a Panzer IV?

If the regular Sherman is only cheap because of its mediocre gun, you'd think that it would be very expensive when combined with one of the most powerful guns in WW2.

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, Redwolf said:

The only standard vehicles for the Germans are the StuG III and the Panzer IV. Playing with strict rarity effectively limits the German player to 50mm front armor if you don't want to pay for the StuG.

I believe there is always one standard rarity model of Panther.

[Redwolf]

My bad, in CMBN one Panther is standard. I did most of my QB in CMFI where it is not.

As for the Sherman - as I said I cannot think of a pricing scheme that makes it as cheap as it is. The other stuff somewhat fits my idea of what is valued highly or not.

[Vanir Ausf B]

48 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

How come the Firefly is only 240 points then, about the same as a Panzer IV?

If the regular Sherman is only cheap because of its mediocre gun, you'd think that it would be very expensive when combined with one of the most powerful guns in WW2

"Regular" Shermans are not cheap only because of the gun. They have thinner upper and lower hull armor than late model Shermans. The armor is also of lower quality. Late model Shermans are not so cheap, even with the mediocre gun. FIreflies are based on early model Shermans with bad armor. They are also penalized a bit for having only one machine gun.

[Vanir Ausf B]

19 hours ago, Redwolf said:

I think what is way more off than StuG vs Pz IV is StuG versus King Tiger.

299 vs 418 purchase points.

Buy 7 Stugs or 5 King Tigers.

A limitation of the system is that it does not take into account the opposition. By-in-large I agree with you, but if you were facing British forces comprised of a typical mix of Fireflies and Sherman 75s the KT would not neccessily be a bargain since the KT turret front is vulnerable to 17 pdr APDS and the 88mm gun is massive overkill (that you still pay for).

Edited June 30, 2021 by Vanir Ausf B

[Redwolf]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

A limitation of the system is that it does not take into account the opposition. By-in-large I agree with you, but if you were facing British forces comprised of a typical mix of Fireflies and Sherman 75s the KT would not neccessily be a bargain since the KT turret front is vulnerable to 17 pdr APDS and the 88mm gun is massive overkill (that you still pay for).

Well, the StuG shots can bounce off the upper hull of the Shermans just fine.

You can play out the same example with Panthers, which are better than the StuG in every respect. 355 vs 299 purchase points.

Panzer IV/70 same thing. Better in every respect than StuG, nearly the same price.

ETA: corrected price with CMBN price

Edited June 30, 2021 by Redwolf

[Vanir Ausf B]

You might want to check your numbers. The most expensive StuG is nowhere near 344 points. The cheapest (StuG IV in Red Thunder) is 284.

[Larsen]

Redwolf compares the prices of StuGs and Panthers. If purchased in a formation the cheapest StuG comes at around 280 points (everything is regular) and Panther comes at about 330 points. We are talking about CMBN and only StuGs III are available.

Edited June 30, 2021 by Larsen

[Vanir Ausf B]

3 hours ago, Redwolf said:

Panzer IV/70 same thing. Better in every respect than StuG, nearly the same price.

ETA: corrected price with CMBN price

Thanks.

But I should point out that the Panzer IV/70(V) is about 60 points more than a StuG. If that's "nearly the same" then StuGs and Panzer IVs are also nearly the same

[Redwolf]

37 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Thanks.

But I should point out that the Panzer IV/70(V) is about 60 points more than a StuG. If that's "nearly the same" then StuGs and Panzer IVs are also nearly the same

It's 20%, so it is buying 5 StuGs or 4 Panzer IV/70. The front armor and the better gun (especially against the Sherman's upper front hull) make the Pz IV/70 much more valuable than that.

[Larsen]

JPz IV/70 and JPz IV/70 (V) are two different vehicles. The second one has the same gun as Panther and is much more expensive. The first one has the same gun as StuG and a much, much better armor, a working MG and more HE shells. It costs about 20-25 points more than StuG in CMBN.

[Larsen]

Correction. I am lookign at purchases for QB in the game now. When buying as single vehicles JPz IV costs 319 (StuG III late costs 296). they have the same gun. JPz has a much better armor, more HE and a working MG. JPz IV/70 (V) costs 362, Same armor as JPz IV and the gun is a Panther gun. This is Hetzer, a very good TD. It is 65 points more than StuG and it is a much better TD - better gun, better armor.

When buying formations Hetzer costs 347 and JPz IV (late) costs 312. StuGs when buying in formation cost 284. Essentially JPz IV is 28 points more and is very hard to kill. One needs either a Firefly or a side shot. Even the US 76mm gun on M10 won't get you a kill from the front.