StuGs and the price of them in QB

[KGBoy]

21 hours ago, Flock said:

I don't quite understand the desire to make things even. Have we been so discontented with QB's so far, I know I haven't.

That's just me. It doesn't seem to gain much traction here. Not based on experience but by observing the AI make selections for QB MEs. The Allies always get way more materiel and look to be hands down winner in who I would prefer to play if the game were played with said selections. Allies always seem to have 50% (at least) in vehicles. On cheaper selection Axis often gets no vehicles and Allies 4 or so. Just seems as QB is ahistorical it is an unnecessary gaming of the system.

[Redwolf]

As far as I am concerned StuG, Pz IV and Sherman can as well have the same price.

(which I think was roughly the case in CMx1's points calculation formula)

[Bulletpoint]

20 hours ago, Larsen said:

22 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Just be aware that each formation costs 50 points.

I did not know that and I didn't bother to count points. Interesting. Each formation starts with 50 points. Thank you! I am not sure how to use that yet but it looks like adding single vehicles to the existing formations might be better rather than adding a new formation with few vehicles.

Just remember each single vehicle you purchase costs 15 points extra, unless it's already part of the formation.

[Larsen]

4 hours ago, Flock said:

Ok, I concede that my StuGIII value of 200pts is low and 220-230 is nearer the mark. However, I still don't see the M4 as being too cheap. Consider Sgt Joch's post on this thread

the war economies of the different countries has been worked into the pricing schemes we have no control over this just as the soldiers of 44/45 had none, but as they did we also feel the effect of it at the front. This factor is a large part of setting the historical context for a QB. I would argue that flattening the values of M4 v Mk IV would remove a large slice of historical context. Put it this way, even if for some reason Germany could have made M4's under licence, with Germany supplying all the resources, they still could have not have made them as cheaply as the USA. This would have meant that a German M4 would have cost more points than an American M4. The QB points are already biased in favour the Germans despite the  greater cost for MkIV vis a vis the M4. Read once more Sgt Jochs post and give a little thought to the 7th Armies 15 StuGs. 

The list of of potential options, kindly posted by Larsen, certainly displays the Stug III's overpricing. Having said that it makes no allowance for rarity value which would make it look like this:-

5xStuGIII                  0pts

6xMkIV                     0pts

4xPanther                0pts

4xJgdPzIV         3864pts

4xJgdPzIV70     9716pts

3xKing Tiger      8463pts

4x Tiger              4320pts

 I reckon that will exceed most QB rarity  allowances. If you don't use rarity points go for it, but forget about historical context.

 

Here we go again.

Those who want some historical content can play scenarios designed with special historical considerations in mind or set the rarity to whatever they feel comfortable with - strict, standard loose. We are already pushed toward using historical formations by the way purchasing for QBs is done and by the the way C2 works in CM2.

The point value of vehicle reflects just the vehicle value expressed in terms of points and in that way is related to the other units int eh game. consider points to be currency that you use in the game. Economical factors are well outside the scope of the game. Please, lets move on from that.

I agree with Redwolf - Shermans, Pz IVs and StuGs should be priced about the same. They offer similar values and each have their own advantages and disadvantages and work better relative to each other in different situations.

[Bulletpoint]

It seems BFC are confused about their own pricing system.

How else do we explain that a Panzer II with a 20mm cannon and 1 MG and no cupola costs 155 points, while a Stuart with a 37mm gun that can also fire canister rounds, 2 MGs, a .50 cal and a cupola costs 114 points?

 

And that's before we add the whopping 1240 rarity points for the Panzer II, and the ... 114 rarity points for the Stuart.

 

If a Stuart is still too expensive for you, there's also a Greyhound scout car which has most of what the Stuart has, but for 84 points and 0 rarity points.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Bulletpoint

[Flock]

I am far from being a puritan with how CMBN or any of the other titles are played. I have been known to play with the rarity turned off so I can satisfy my desire to roll around with King Tigers. I want everybody to have a good time playing the game.

What attracted me to Combat Mission was the great way it represented the WWII battle field and it's armies in a realistic, balanced  and playable way. Overall I think they got it right, but not everywhere the StuGIII price always seemed odd which is why I responded to this thread in the first place.

I have no wish to  limit anyones enjoyment the game and I feel this must also be  Battle Fronts desire. To say that that if I want to play games with an historical context I should limit myself to the ready made scenarios its a bit strong. Besides once you have played a scenario the second time it is played you already know far too much about the enemy. Battlefront realised this and provided us with a means of generating our own scenarios whilst maintaining some historical context, due in no small part, by the weighting of the pricing system.The example of the PzII Luchs mentioned by Bulletpoint, demonstrates (to mind at least) that there is no confusion on the part of Battle Front and that Economical/production factors have been used in the pricing system. The PzII represented in CMBN is one of the rarest vehicles used by the Germans in WWII (production run of 100 from 42-44) and most of them were sent east. The USA produced thousands of Starts/ M8's M4's etc' etc'.

If any body wants to play 'what if the Germans had lots of King tigers or whatever' type scenarios thats absolutely fine and needs no justification, just don't wreck the point system that provides a realistic balanced and playable compromise.  Vanir Ausf B's posting of the results list from 'Blitz' earlier in this thread indicates a well balanced gameplay, with the Germans giving as good as they get.

All those different German AFV's are indeed fascinating and add greatly to the appeal of the German Army to the war gamer  and modeller alike, but in reality were a nightmare for production and for the logistics of the army in the field.

Edited July 3, 2021 by Flock

[AlexUK]

From my point of view it would be great to see more variety of vehicles actually used in H2H QBs, if the points system can be tweaked to encourage that, better for everyone, it seems. 

 

Would be interesting to see stats of vehicles actually selected. If preponderance of certain vehicle/s on Axis side, does that not indicate a problem with points value? 

 

From stats earlier in the thread, doesn't seem to be a complete bias towards Allies, as games won seem relatively even? 

[KGBoy]

Here is the AI selection for medium plus 100% Allies 27 vehicles Axis 5 vehicles.  In an ME who gets where first is fundamental. Which side would you choose?

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

I would choose to not have the AI pick my force.

[KGBoy]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I would choose to not have the AI pick my force.

Begging the question.  AI doesn’t play favourites. It just works with the points. It seems to attempt balance too. Lots of axis panzershreck. You just won’t get there very quickly.

[Flock]

won't+100% be added to just one side, if the Allies are first to come up then they get the 100% extra?

Edited July 3, 2021 by Flock

[Erwin]

Re Stugs - was watching "Tanks" on Amazon Prime, and apparently, Stug crews regularly overcame the ammo shortage by stacking ammo on the floor.  In that way they increased the loadout to about 90 rounds.  So a problem that BF has is that it goes entirely by what the specs are rather than what wartime realities are.

Recommend "Tanks" for lots of interesting info.  Caveat: most of the time the producers or editors hilariously can't tell the difference between a T-34, a Tiger II or any other tank.  The interviewees however, are good with lots of info.

Edited July 3, 2021 by Erwin

[KGBoy]

18 hours ago, Flock said:

won't+100% be added to just one side, if the Allies are first to come up then they get the 100% extra?

Clearly I have a lot to learn!

[Flock]

I think the percentage shift is there as a handicap mechanism to help level up player ability or any other perceived in balance.

 

[KGBoy]

11 minutes ago, Flock said:

I think the percentage shift is there as a handicap mechanism to help level up player ability or any other perceived in balance.

 

You led this horse to water and it drank. Thanks Flock!

[BornGinger]

On 7/2/2021 at 3:07 PM, KGBoy said:

Just seems as QB is ahistorical it is an unnecessary gaming of the system.

It is a quick battle, which means something you play for the fun of it or to see how well you manage in different situations. I don't think a quick battle is supposed to be historical or even a balanced/fair battle.

[Larsen]

I don't see why QB can not be ahistorical. It also can be unbalanced - there is a choice to give one side extra points. Basically CM gives us an engine that allows us to play a tactical game the way we see fit.

There is a lot of different equipment in the game and it would be great if all of it would get used. For that different units, vehicles should be priced in a way to let people chose different force compositions.

[Bulletpoint]

On 7/3/2021 at 10:47 AM, Flock said:

The example of the PzII Luchs mentioned by Bulletpoint, demonstrates (to mind at least) that there is no confusion on the part of Battle Front and that Economical/production factors have been used in the pricing system. The PzII represented in CMBN is one of the rarest vehicles used by the Germans in WWII (production run of 100 from 42-44) and most of them were sent east. The USA produced thousands of Starts/ M8's M4's etc' etc'.

Historical rarity is handled by the rarity points system. The Luchs costs more than ten times more rarity points than the Stuart.

If BFC then also makes the Luchs cost more basic points in order to represent historical availability, to my mind that suggests that they are confused about how their own unit price system was intended to work. They mix up apples and oranges.

Here's another argument: Look at the price of a Puma. Also a historically very rare vehicle, but it costs less than the Luchs, and it's a much better AFV.

[Larsen]

Hm. Not sure if Puma is a better vehicle that Lynx. 20mm gun is really effective against any soft vehicles and infantry. More so than 50mm gun.

But that is beyond the point. Lynx should not cost more than Stuart.

[Redwolf]

The 20mm autocannon in a reasonable vehicle (not an unarmored halftrack) costs a lot. Keep in mind that it can penetrate the side of early Shermans at close range.

Not that I agree with the pricing, as said Greyhound and Stuart are obviously more valuable but cheaper.

[Larsen]

I'd say Stuart and Lynx should be close in pricing with Stuart costing 5-10 more. 

Greyhound and Puma also should be close in points and 15-20 points below Stuart.

[JorgenCAB]

I perfectly understand why points are so important to allot of people but frankly they are always relative. That is why I hate QB and point systems with a passion because they are extremely unrealistic and most of the time produce very unrealistic scenarios. They also produce very boring meta gaming environments which to me destroy any sense or realism and fun. I do however understand that for some the game is more important than the simulation.

 

The best solution is of course to play a game where there is a third party setting up the game and forces... as in reality battles are fought with the forces at hand... no one withhold resources not needed for other purposes in order to make something fair or balanced, in reality we want the fight to be as unbalanced as possible given all other priorities...

While the Stug might be a bit over costed it does have allot of advantages that other tanks does not, but as points are extremely relative anyway it is really difficult to say. If the opponent take very few regular tanks then the StuG certainly is over priced... if the map have many large open spaces and there are allot of tanks then StuG can be outright under costed for it's value. As most QB usually are played on smaller maps and mostly use infantry then the StuG are obviously too expensive in favor of lighter vehicles.

Against infantry pretty much ANY vehicle protected against small arms fire is a better choice than another more expensive vehicle. There is a good reason for why not all combat vehicles on the battlefield is a heavily armored tank, they are a very expensive piece of equipment that also cost allot of time and resources to maintain. Usually a 30mm auto cannon are equally effective if sometimes not even more so effective in engaging infantry over a 120mm tank gun, especially when you consider rate of fire and ammunition capacity.

A StuG should be taken not for it's points cost but because it was a very common infantry support vehicle... most points system just destroy these types of realistic force compositions and that is just sad.

Edited September 10, 2021 by JorgenCAB

[Redwolf]

2 hours ago, JorgenCAB said:

I perfectly understand why points are so important to allot of people but frankly they are always relative. That is why I hate QB and point systems with a passion because they are extremely unrealistic and most of the time produce very unrealistic scenarios. They also produce very boring meta gaming environments which to me destroy any sense or realism and fun. I do however understand that for some the game is more important than the simulation.

 

The best solution is of course to play a game where there is a third party setting up the game and forces... as in reality battles are fought with the forces at hand... no one withhold resources not needed for other purposes in order to make something fair or balanced, in reality we want the fight to be as unbalanced as possible given all other priorities...

While the Stug might be a bit over costed it does have allot of advantages that other tanks does not, but as points are extremely relative anyway it is really difficult to say. If the opponent take very few regular tanks then the StuG certainly is over priced... if the map have many large open spaces and there are allot of tanks then StuG can be outright under costed for it's value. As most QB usually are played on smaller maps and mostly use infantry then the StuG are obviously too expensive in favor of lighter vehicles.

Against infantry pretty much ANY vehicle protected against small arms fire is a better choice than another more expensive vehicle. There is a good reason for why not all combat vehicles on the battlefield is a heavily armored tank, they are a very expensive piece of equipment that also cost allot of time and resources to maintain. Usually a 30mm auto cannon are equally effective if sometimes not even more so effective in engaging infantry over a 120mm tank gun, especially when you consider rate of fire and ammunition capacity.

A StuG should be taken not for it's points cost but because it was a very common infantry support vehicle... most points system just destroy these types of realistic force compositions and that is just sad.

The current price framework is actually surprisingly good, especially if you also throw in rarity.

That makes it so sad that the prices for Sherman, Pz IV and StuG are so out of alignment. It is one of the few misfeatures in the current prices.

[JorgenCAB]

Only if we consider "balanced" and fair engagements to be in anyway very realistic, especially played within a confined self-contained context... this is why point systems in a QB structure always produce unrealistic engagements which is very far from how such engagements would play out in reality even if they do happen.

Almost all meeting engagements in reality is two forces meeting when they did not expect it to or between reconnaissance forces. The amount of persistent force you are able to apply in such scenarios in reality is often very restricted based on the operational goals of the event.

Most QB I have played with my friends usually just end up in whomever manages to sprint to the most objectives first and establish a good defensive position wins, casualties and operational priorities does not matter. Then there are the complete lack of defensive forces close to your starting position which means you know 100% there are no troops for a fair bit of real estate in those games, this produce a gamey environment that is not really that fun and one reason why point systems is quite relative. How many towed anti-tank guns do you realistically take in a small to medium QB game, they are not really worth their points for the most part. You often bypass certain elements in the unit hierarchy as they are not as "efficient" for the type of QB you are playing, another evidence for "relative" points costs.

Almost every object (unit) in the game has a huge relative worth in value depending on terrain, scale and mission type.

This is why, if you can manage to do it, having a third party generate the battle, doing the unit selection, give you the mission briefing and set the goal for the game. This would generally produce the most "fun" and interesting games. Points is a great tool for a rough estimation of equipment comparisons for scenario building, but that is all.

I have sometimes even built scenarios to troll the players so they don't rely too much on the initial mission briefings and instead think a bit more for themselves. Such as forget to mention the defender will get a pretty substantial reinforcement in a certain time frame... perhaps not know to either or at least not as extensive as they previously thought. The reason being that the attacker are suppose to actually become the defender at some point, but the player have to understand this and adapt... This is another example where points cost are quite relative as one asset you get from the start may be pretty worthless (say towed anti-tank guns) during a quick paced armored assault, but quite important when you need to withdraw into a defensive position. If the player are not mentally prepared for this they might waste or mismanage those odd resources they had from the start.

Are the StuG too expensive... sure for most types of environments it probably is. When you build a scenario on the other hand that is not really relevant. Should they have multiple points versions of every equipment based on battlefield size, type, length and force composition etc.?!?

Perhaps they should... but it can get complicated really fast. They biggest issue is meta gaming which means that points values also is depending on what equipment the opponent chooses to bring.

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, JorgenCAB said:

Only if we consider "balanced" and fair engagements to be in anyway very realistic, especially played within a confined self-contained context... this is why point systems in a QB structure always produce unrealistic engagements which is very far from how such engagements would play out in reality even if they do happen.

Almost all meeting engagements in reality is two forces meeting when they did not expect it to or between reconnaissance forces. The amount of persistent force you are able to apply in such scenarios in reality is often very restricted based on the operational goals of the event.

Most QB I have played with my friends usually just end up in whomever manages to sprint to the most objectives first and establish a good defensive position wins, casualties and operational priorities does not matter. Then there are the complete lack of defensive forces close to your starting position which means you know 100% there are no troops for a fair bit of real estate in those games, this produce a gamey environment that is not really that fun and one reason why point systems is quite relative. How many towed anti-tank guns do you realistically take in a small to medium QB game, they are not really worth their points for the most part. You often bypass certain elements in the unit hierarchy as they are not as "efficient" for the type of QB you are playing, another evidence for "relative" points costs.

Almost every object (unit) in the game has a huge relative worth in value depending on terrain, scale and mission type.

This is why, if you can manage to do it, having a third party generate the battle, doing the unit selection, give you the mission briefing and set the goal for the game. This would generally produce the most "fun" and interesting games. Points is a great tool for a rough estimation of equipment comparisons for scenario building, but that is all.

I have sometimes even built scenarios to troll the players so they don't rely too much on the initial mission briefings and instead think a bit more for themselves. Such as forget to mention the defender will get a pretty substantial reinforcement in a certain time frame... perhaps not know to either or at least not as extensive as they previously thought. The reason being that the attacker are suppose to actually become the defender at some point, but the player have to understand this and adapt... This is another example where points cost are quite relative as one asset you get from the start may be pretty worthless (say towed anti-tank guns) during a quick paced armored assault, but quite important when you need to withdraw into a defensive position. If the player are not mentally prepared for this they might waste or mismanage those odd resources they had from the start.

Are the StuG too expensive... sure for most types of environments it probably is. When you build a scenario on the other hand that is not really relevant. Should they have multiple points versions of every equipment based on battlefield size, type, length and force composition etc.?!?

Perhaps they should... but it can get complicated really fast. They biggest issue is meta gaming which means that points values also is depending on what equipment the opponent chooses to bring.

There are also assault / attack / probe qb's. I agree that ME usually lead to what you describe and are not my favorite.

The pro of qb is mainly you can't know what enemy has exactly imo. And quicker to setup not needing 3rd party.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Lethaface