Petition to equalize QB prices of some similar WW2 tanks

[Redwolf]

This is a petition from players over at thefewgoodmen CM playing community. It regards Quickbattle pricing of common tanks that we think should be adjusted.

In our opinion a basic 75mm Sherman, a basic PzIV long and a basic StuG long should roughly be priced the same.

As for changing the pricing model we feel that:

• the turret on the tanks is worth quite a bit, so the StuG should be discounted for the lack of it. CMx2 is good enough to really make a turret count
• same for the additional MG and ammo loadout on the real tanks - right now secondary weapons seem not to influence prices much at all. Again, current CMx2's engine mechanisms provide good utility from these MGs
• although the PzIV has a better gun than the 75mm Sherman the 50mm front turret puts it right back into the same price class. And the Sherman has better HE

Currently the prices are (in CMBN):

• basic Sherman M4M1 (mid) 190 points
• Pz IVJ (early) 241 points
• StuG III (mid) 299 points

We feel that the current pricing is getting in the way of both historically accurate force mixes (not enough StuGs) and also of general fairness between the sides. Pricing these three the same would improve both and lead to more even, realistic forces. Our community makes a lot of use of QB-purchased vehicles (we are probably the experts on it) and we feel the combat capabilities are fundamentally equivalent between these three.

[Redwolf]

Existing threads on this topic. Some have sections of pretty high signal-to-noise ratio:

• https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/stugs.33368/
• https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/how-about-a-petition.33676/

[SergeantSqook]

This seems like a fundamentally flawed argument to me. Surely the question should be "does Battlefronts points formula accurately reflect how useful certain vehicles are" rather than arbitrarily making three different vehicles the same price.

[Redwolf]

9 minutes ago, SergeantSqook said:

This seems like a fundamentally flawed argument to me. Surely the question should be "does Battlefronts points formula accurately reflect how useful certain vehicles are" rather than arbitrarily making three different vehicles the same price.

Of course. We want the formula adjusted so that it ends up with these three being equal.

[SergeantSqook]

13 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

Of course. We want the formula adjusted so that it ends up with these three being equal.

There is a 14 point difference between the "standard" Sherman and "standard" Panzer IV

[Redwolf]

9 minutes ago, SergeantSqook said:

There is a 14 point difference between the "standard" Sherman and "standard" Panzer IV

That one (which is substantially better) doesn't change the fact that there is a 190 points one. With turret, multiple MGs, and 76 mm turret front armor. The cheap one mind you.

Or look at the British Shermans if you prefer.

[SergeantSqook]

1 minute ago, Redwolf said:

That one (which is substantially better) doesn't change the fact that there is a 190 points one. With turret, multiple MGs, and 76 mm turret front armor. The cheap one mind you.

Or look at the British Shermans if you prefer.

The 190 points one has significant flaws in armour (questionable quality and multiple weakpoints) and visibility (has no cupola) and is priced appropriately. It seems kind of weird to cherry pick the worst Sherman against a "standard" PzIV as a point of argument.

[Redwolf]

10 minutes ago, SergeantSqook said:

The 190 points one has significant flaws in armour (questionable quality and multiple weakpoints) and visibility (has no cupola) and is priced appropriately. It seems kind of weird to cherry pick the worst Sherman against a "standard" PzIV as a point of argument.

And in your opinion the 75(W) with the 90mm turret front should still be cheaper than the 50mm turret front Pz IV?

[SergeantSqook]

2 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

And in your opinion the 75(W) with the 90mm turret front should still be cheaper than the 50mm turret front Pz IV?

Kingly loaded question

[SergeantSqook]

14 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

And in your opinion the 75(W) with the 90mm turret front should still be cheaper than the 50mm turret front Pz IV?

Sorry, let me reply properly.

 

I don't base my opinion of QB costs on turret front thickness.

[MikeyD]

Setting up battles where the parties are functionally equal is itself a-historical.  Parity only happens at micro-level where a squad is butting heads with another squad. Though the Americans have more soldiers and the Germans have MG42s, so even that isn't parity.

[Commanderski]

If all sides were equal there wouldn't be any wars as nobody would have the advantage.

[Drifter Man]

I support the idea.

• 75mm Sherman (with no W's) is a great tank for infantry support with decent antitank capability and protection. I tend to buy them a lot.
• Pz IV has a good gun for AT work but is too vulnerable. At the typical ranges in CM it is not better vs Sherman in tank vs tank. I avoid them in QBs.
• StuG III is a capable tank destroyer with good frontal protection, but its limited HE loadout and lack of a useful MG (until the late versions get a coaxial) make it less useful for support. I like to use StuGs in QBs but I do it knowing that I am getting a bad deal on the points.

Getting roughly the same value from the three, I would like to see them at roughly the same cost.

[Bulletpoint]

I also support this petition.

[Redwolf]

OK, let's look at Shermans (any Sherman) versus the Stug:

• both can penetrate each others' front armor in a direct confrontation
• at long range the StuG's gun will score quicker, however at those same ranges the StuG shell starts bouncing off the Sherman's hull
• the HE from the Sherman is substantially more powerful, useful for anti-infantry work
• the StuG only has a single MG crippled by low ammo. Sherman has two regular MGs with lots of ammo, and a .50 cal on top
• Sherman has a 5-person crew versus the StuG 4
• obviously the turret is a difference. The Sherman doesn't only have a turret, it has a fast turning one
• the Sherman has self-defense smoke launchers, the StuG does not

And that applies to all US Shermans, starting from the 190 points costing one. And the StuG is 299 points. How can that look right to anyone?

[Hapless]

This seems like a fun rabbit hole.

On 10/30/2021 at 3:45 PM, Redwolf said:

historically accurate force mixes

is not compatible with

On 10/30/2021 at 3:45 PM, Redwolf said:

general fairness between the sides

Pick one or the other, you can't have both. I, for one, would love to have more historically accurate battles where the Germans had no tanks at all, could only have green/conscript troops while I had a gratuitous amount of artillery along with swarms of angry Typhoons and P-47s.

In addition, we don't know how Battlefront calculates QB points: there could be plenty of other factors at play which push the values in one direction or the other.

I appreciate the intent- but I would think it is best achieved via house rules rather than inflicting one opinion on everyone else. Playing with 0 rarity (ie. neither player can bring *any* unit with a rarity cost) is a good one, really mixes things up.

[Redwolf]

10 minutes ago, Hapless said:

I appreciate the intent- but I would think it is best achieved via house rules rather than inflicting one opinion on everyone else. Playing with 0 rarity (ie. neither player can bring *any* unit with a rarity cost) is a good one, really mixes things up.

That brings you into "Panther Hell". For the Germans the only zero rarity vehicles are a Mk IV, a StuG and a Panther. Since the other two are overpriced you have no choice but go for the Panther if you play 0 rarity. Panthers are seriously fun-limiting.

In reality people save rarity points when selecting infantry and support and then spend those rarity points in vehicles such as open-top TDs, Wespes or Jagdpanzers. More fun battles are a result. But you need to save up for the rarity.

Correcting the price for StuGs and Mk IVs would drive more battles into the fun zone without rarity games. The mispricing is what makes rare vehicles so attractive, and hence you see more rare-induced forces. Not good for fun or historical accuracy.

Edited October 31, 2021 by Redwolf

[Bulletpoint]

14 minutes ago, Hapless said:

On 10/30/2021 at 4:45 PM, Redwolf said:

historically accurate force mixes

is not compatible with

On 10/30/2021 at 4:45 PM, Redwolf said:

general fairness between the sides

Pick one or the other, you can't have both

I think we can have both, or at least a better balance than we have currently. I'd like to see German "work horse" vehicles make a bigger appearance. All vehicles of all sides should be worth their points value.

[Redwolf]

18 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Setting up battles where the parties are functionally equal is itself a-historical.  Parity only happens at micro-level where a squad is butting heads with another squad. Though the Americans have more soldiers and the Germans have MG42s, so even that isn't parity.

The sole existence of a site like FGM shows how good the existing system actually is. It is quite workable, about 50% of the games and tournaments use self-selected forces, and usually with rarity set to standard.

So why not improve the historical accuracy if all that it would cost is adjust some variables to make the most common vehicles more common?

BTW, US squads wipe out all other squads, easily. But that is not a problem, I have never seen anybody having a problem with the squad prices. If you consider how difficult that is you will realize how attractive this gaming system already is.

 

[Bufo]

What is this heretical topic again? Clearly you haven't had enough. I'm calling Commissar Miller.

Edited October 31, 2021 by Bufo

[Hapless]

36 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

Not good for fun or historical accuracy.

Fun is subjective. Historically accuracy is less subjective, so you should probably start finding some sources to back up your argument.

Like, how many StuGs there were in Normandy... assuming that their points value reflects that in addition to rarity, of course.

[Redwolf]

10 minutes ago, Hapless said:

Fun is subjective. Historically accuracy is less subjective, so you should probably start finding some sources to back up your argument.

Like, how many StuGs there were in Normandy... assuming that their points value reflects that in addition to rarity, of course.

Why would I do that? Rarity takes care of that and nobody seems to have a problem with the rarity values that BFC picked.

[chuckdyke]

Life is not meant to be fair especially during a war. 

[Redwolf]

15 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Life is not meant to be fair especially during a war. 

What about fun?

[holoween]

24 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Life is not meant to be fair especially during a war. 

But quick battles are supposed to give a roughly fair fight.