Petition to equalize QB prices of some similar WW2 tanks

[chuckdyke]

50 minutes ago, holoween said:

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

That's why I stopped playing SF2 a Toyota Pick Up Truck is definitely out classed by an Abrams. Joking apart you can change the parameters. Quick battles are more meant for H&H battles I thought as triggers are far more limited. 

Edited October 31, 2021 by chuckdyke

[SergeantSqook]

7 hours ago, Redwolf said:

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?

This has basically nothing to do with how QB costs are calculated, the vehicles characteristics are punched into a formula which gives the output, they don't base it on a vehicles ability to epically 1v1 a different vehicle.

 

The StuG has comparable but slightly better armour, a better gun and a much, much smaller profile.

To have any relevant discussion on this, the vehicles characteristics should be compared side by side and then that compared to their cost; rather than this weird 1v1.

 

(again though big props for the uber-loaded comment where you mention all the Shermans advantages but none of the StuGs. Very cool)

[Redwolf]

18 minutes ago, SergeantSqook said:

This has basically nothing to do with how QB costs are calculated, the vehicles characteristics are punched into a formula which gives the output, they don't base it on a vehicles ability to epically 1v1 a different vehicle.

The StuG has comparable but slightly better armour, a better gun and a much, much smaller profile.

To have any relevant discussion on this, the vehicles characteristics should be compared side by side and then that compared to their cost; rather than this weird 1v1.

(again though big props for the uber-loaded comment where you mention all the Shermans advantages but none of the StuGs. Very cool)

Nobody in this thread has based pricing on 1:1 battles. That's in your head.

Having said that, you might recall that even the CMBO demo called them roughly equivalent. Not sure how CM ended up with so expensive StuGs now.

Now, a question to you: you seem to think very highly of the StuG (this commend) and the Panzer IV (last page). Are you happy with the StuG being 25% more expensive than the Pz IV?

[SergeantSqook]

8 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

Nobody in this thread has based pricing on 1:1 battles.

  

7 hours ago, Redwolf said:

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?

 

 

Edited November 1, 2021 by SergeantSqook

[SergeantSqook]

15 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

Now, a question to you: you seem to think very highly of the StuG (this commend) and the Panzer IV (last page). Are you happy with the StuG being 25% more expensive than the Pz IV?

Sorry missed that at first. See my previous answer to your previous loaded question.

[holoween]

58 minutes ago, SergeantSqook said:

This has basically nothing to do with how QB costs are calculated, the vehicles characteristics are punched into a formula which gives the output, they don't base it on a vehicles ability to epically 1v1 a different vehicle.

When their formula spits out prices that are at odds with all player experience then it might be worth finding out what is causing that discrepancy.

58 minutes ago, SergeantSqook said:

The StuG has comparable but slightly better armour,

Sure

58 minutes ago, SergeantSqook said:

a better gun

Only in pure penetration. HE is at best equal, it has far less ammo and is limited by not having a turret.

58 minutes ago, SergeantSqook said:

and a much, much smaller profile.

Until the sherman goes hulldown and then the sherman is smaller.

58 minutes ago, SergeantSqook said:

To have any relevant discussion on this, the vehicles characteristics should be compared side by side and then that compared to their cost; rather than this weird 1v1.

Sure but even then the only time the stug comes out on top is if you compare short, long range tank duels.

58 minutes ago, SergeantSqook said:

(again though big props for the uber-loaded comment where you mention all the Shermans advantages but none of the StuGs. Very cool)

Its not exactly loaded when all you could come up with to countere have been the points you mentioned above. Those even if taken at face value dont make the stug 50% more valuable.

[holoween]

1 hour ago, SergeantSqook said:

To have any relevant discussion on this, the vehicles characteristics should be compared side by side and then that compared to their cost;

From this picture guess which costs 190 and which 299.

 

[SergeantSqook]

 

Spectacular ability to miss the point.

  

6 minutes ago, holoween said:

Only in pure penetration. HE is at best equal, it has far less ammo and is limited by not having a turret.

Okay so the gun is better, like I said. Thanks.

6 minutes ago, holoween said:

Until the sherman goes hulldown and then the sherman is smaller.

The fact that you tried to raise this as a point is legitimately hilarious and doubled by the fact that it's basically not even true.

They have a near identical ability to take cover behind terrain and the Sherman being able to cope for it's vulnerability based on terrain isn't a factor in it's characteristics as a vehicle. The StuG can also be much closer as it hugs the terrain since it isn't trying to hide it's barn-sized hull. It also has better average armour in this stance, since the mantlet is the only stronger part on the Shermans turret. Which are also both irrelevant to points cost.

Anyway, you managed to completely miss my point about direct tank on tank, saying the StuG should be cheaper than the Sherman because the Sherman is better on cherrypicking stats or because the Sherman would probably win a 1v1 has nothing to do with how the points cost is calculated.

 

21 minutes ago, holoween said:

with all player experience

"all player experience" must explain why there is a unanimous agreement on this in this thread and all the other threads and definitely not a long discussion that gets completely ignored every time.

[SergeantSqook]

13 minutes ago, holoween said:

From this picture guess which costs 190 and which 299.

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[holoween]

9 minutes ago, SergeantSqook said:

 Anyway, you managed to completely miss my point about direct tank on tank, saying the StuG should be cheaper than the Sherman because the Sherman is better on cherrypicking stats or because the Sherman would probably win a 1v1 has nothing to do with how the points cost is calculated.

So you dont want to accept a simple duel between them which is reasonable.

But you also dont want to accept looking at the vehicles individual stats that they derive their cost from to compare them

Can you please lay out how you would want a comparison because to me it looks like you just dont want to compare because the conclusion is too obvious.

11 minutes ago, SergeantSqook said:

 "all player experience" must explain why there is a unanimous agreement on this in this thread and all the other threads and definitely not a long discussion that gets completely ignored every time.

Ive yet to see you put forward a coherent argument why the price should be at the point where it is.

The player experience im referring to coms from players consistently playing HvH QBs and Turnaments. I have yet to hear anyone consider the Stug to be deserving of the price it has no matter how you try to compare.

[Artkin]

The real question is - what is the pricing based off like @SergeantSqook said? Rarity in theater? Pure performance? After this is figured out then yeah we can gauge the pricing. 

Edit: forgot about rarity points. It would make sense that they are based off performance. 

Edited November 1, 2021 by Artkin

[SergeantSqook]

3 hours ago, Artkin said:

The real question is - what is the pricing based off like @SergeantSqook said? Rarity in theater? Pure performance? After this is figured out then yeah we can gauge the pricing. 

Edit: forgot about rarity points. It would make sense that they are based off performance. 

The way it's been described from what I recall is that they punch all the "stats" of the vehicle into a formula and then that gives the cost. Historical performance is not counted for specifically, and obviously presence is counted for using rarity points.

[chuckdyke]

You guys need to do some testing. The Stug III maybe better in spotting and engaging first. @Drifter Man did some tests for me and I was surprised that the SU76 spots better than a T34/76 and it is the reason why it is more expensive in QB. The Stug III was officially by the artillery. But the Panzer IV is also more expensive than the Sherman and officially it is a tank. I think it may very well be gun, the German 75mm L43 gun I feel is superior to the 75 mm mounted on the Sherman.

[domfluff]

Have been avoiding this thread, but some points of order:


1) Points values are derived from a formula (allegedly), and we do not know what this formula is.

2) Rarity points are an abstract, descriptive label, which applies a multiplication of those points.

Under Loose rarity:

"Standard" and "Common" are 0,
"Uncommon" and "Limited" are x 1
"Rare" are x 2

Under Standard rarity:

"Standard" is 0
"Common" is x 1
"Uncommon" is x 3
"Limited" is x 5
"Rare" is x 8

Under Strict rarity:

"Standard" is 0
"Common" is x 1
"Uncommon" is x 3
"Limited" is x 7
"Rare" is x 16

(There is a "hypothetical" rarity as well, but that's unusual enough not to bother with here).

So a tank costing 302 points, which is labelled as "Uncommon" will cost 302/906, if playing on Strict.

3) Points-buy is a terrible system which is always wrong, in any use-case ever. It's also usually the least-worst option available.

The typical problem is that it has no knowledge of context. Saying "these things are equivalent if hull down" is completely backwards, since that's not how the CM points system works at all - it's devoid of this kind of context, and relies on the model (as far as we know). Likewise "these things are functionally equivalent and should be the same price" isn't any more true.

 

Now, to engage with the point of the thread (aside from chuckling mildly about a thread about Quick Battles in Normandy being put in the General section of the site):

4) There are some good fundamental points made in this thread, but I do think the way in which they have been made is pretty poor, and really detracts from any case you'd like to make.

I do agree that the Stug III seems overpriced, and I have a suspicion about why this is.

We don't know the formula for deriving these prices, and I suspect it's actually very complex. I suspect it might, for example, take each and every armour facing, and applies a weighting to them (so a thick rear armour would be worth less than a thick frontal armour). We know that in CMx1, turrets came at a high premium, so I suspect the turret tax was lowered for CMBN.

The combination of those two speculations might explain the Stug III pricing. The Stug III has relatively thick frontal armour, and (due to the lack of turret), fewer armour plates to average out. That will mean that the frontal armour might well take up a disproportionate amount of pricing here. Further, the lack of a crippling turret tax would further separate the values of this compared to a Panzer IV or Sherman.

Now, whilst I agree that the Stug III seems overpriced (and many of the linked discussions about this contain some pretty poor arguments for this), I'm not sure I agree with the Panzer IV comments to the same extent. Further, even if this was "fixed", this would mostly have the effect of pushing the issues somewhere else - points-buy is always, always wrong, it's just a question of where and how much.

Quick Battles in general seem to have a lower priority for BF. The AI system isn't designed for them, the auto-selection weighting system is nonsensical, and given how CMRT, CMBS and CMCW all share the same pool of QB maps for the most part, it doesn't seem to be something that particularly matters.

There are some alternatives, but most of them would require some major design work to implement in a meaningful way, and I suspect that's not really worth the (considerable) effort, rather than this, presumably mostly-automated process.

As an example, a formation-based approach could work - pitting reasonable/plausible formations against each other (a Soviet FSE vs a screening US Cavalry platoon would be a simple example). The Quick Battle TO&E situation is baffling in the first place - I don't really know why certain things are removed (like the higher level artillery that would typically be in place). Equally why there isn't a "custom" TO&E option for points. AI auto-selection would best be improved by zeroing out a lot of the weightings, or providing set templates to work from, to at least give the impression of some logic.

Still, all of that is heavy design work, and is neither quick nor cheap. For something (multiplayer in general and quick battle in particular) which is apparently a low priority for Battlefront, it certainly doesn't surprise me that there are some vehicles in some of the titles which cost a bit more than they should.
 

Edited November 1, 2021 by domfluff

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, domfluff said:

Further, even if this was "fixed", this would mostly have the effect of pushing the issues somewhere else - points-buy is always, always wrong

 

"But instead of that, how futile are all his efforts. He is still forcing his way through the private rooms of the innermost palace. He will never win his way through.

And if he did manage that, nothing would have been achieved. He would have to fight his way down the steps, and, if he managed to do that, nothing would have been achieved. He would have to stride through the courtyards, and after the courtyards the second palace encircling the first, and, then again, stairs and courtyards, and then, once again, a palace, and so on for thousands of years.

And if he finally did burst through the outermost door—but that can never, never happen—the royal capital city, the centre of the world, is still there in front of him, piled high and full of sediment. No one pushes his way through here..."

[Redwolf]

3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

You guys need to do some testing. The Stug III maybe better in spotting and engaging first. @Drifter Man did some tests for me and I was surprised that the SU76 spots better than a T34/76 and it is the reason why it is more expensive in QB. The Stug III was officially by the artillery. But the Panzer IV is also more expensive than the Sherman and officially it is a tank. I think it may very well be gun, the German 75mm L43 gun I feel is superior to the 75 mm mounted on the Sherman.

The SU-76 spots better because it is open top. The StuG is closed top.

And the SU-76 is 144 points compared to 250 for the T-34/76.

[chuckdyke]

9 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

And the SU-76 is 144 points compared to 250 for the T-34/76.

Ok my apologies also the T34/76 has only 2 men in the turret. I look from now on more carefully at the SU76 especially in the defense. But it has SU which stands I understand for assault gun. I like to say don't think about winning or losing but the playing experience in H&H. A Pyrrhic Victory is actually a strategic defeat. The players have the last word about the parameters. 

Edited November 1, 2021 by chuckdyke

[holoween]

10 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

The SU-76 spots better because it is open top. The StuG is closed top.

And the SU-76 is 144 points compared to 250 for the T-34/76.

su 76 is better compared to the wespe.

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, holoween said:

su 76 is better compared to the wespe.

SU 76 was capable of indirect fire. The maps are probably too small for this feature. 

[Redwolf]

3 hours ago, domfluff said:

Still, all of that is heavy design work, and is neither quick nor cheap. For something (multiplayer in general and quick battle in particular) which is apparently a low priority for Battlefront, it certainly doesn't surprise me that there are some vehicles in some of the titles which cost a bit more than they should.

 

Good post.

The key here is that the existing system is already workable and fun. Otherwise people would not bother with QBs. The hard part has already been done.

Now we just need the roughest edge filed down. The formula that BFC uses is obviously serviceable and doesn't need to be thrown out or anything. Just some parameter adjustments, namely around turrets, MGs and other tankness.

[domfluff]

The system could definitely be improved - in fact, I'd suggest that it can never hit a state where it couldn't be improved. Doesn't meant that things can't be tweaked.

For some prior context for comparison:

Clearly a different time, and a different game, but the song remains the same. 

I do think the examples given in that thread are a little more contentious - comparing a CMx1 Stuart to a CMx1 Stug III can't really be a good measure for anything, because they serve fundamentally different roles. That also speaks to the issue with points-buy in general - if it's invalid to compare a scout vehicle to an assault gun (or AT gun, depending on usage) due to their role, then it's also not a good assumption that any two random vehicles which cost the same can trade evenly with each other. Points have no concept of context, especially in CM's permissive QB structure.

[Redwolf]

8 minutes ago, domfluff said:

The system could definitely be improved - in fact, I'd suggest that it can never hit a state where it couldn't be improved. Doesn't meant that things can't be tweaked.

For some prior context for comparison:

Clearly a different time, and a different game, but the song remains the same. 

I do think the examples given in that thread are a little more contentious - comparing a CMx1 Stuart to a CMx1 Stug III can't really be a good measure for anything, because they serve fundamentally different roles. That also speaks to the issue with points-buy in general - if it's invalid to compare a scout vehicle to an assault gun (or AT gun, depending on usage) due to their role, then it's also not a good assumption that any two random vehicles which cost the same can trade evenly with each other. Points have no concept of context, especially in CM's permissive QB structure.

Good find.

Yes, it is amazing how expensive turrets were in CMx1. Now we swung to the opposite side instead of something in the middle.

I want to point out again that nobody in this petition bases relative prices between two units just on how a duel between those two would work out. The Sherman in particular is a much better anti-infantry tank than the StuG.

[Commanderski]

While the point system may or may not be correct what I would like to see is a drop down box for force adjustment for the defenders. There is one for the attacker but not for the defender. I think it would allow the defender to pick a more varied force than what they can do now.

[Larsen]

The best approach in my opinion would be for BFC to let games (us) mode the prices. Eventually the community will come to a certain compromise. Free market always finds the best price (even it the price changes with time).

The case of StuG is the most obvious one. I don't understand how they let this slide - an assault gun with very limited HE supply, mediocre armor, no MG, no turret and 4 men crew. It is much worse as a TD than JPz IV although pretty close in price to it (299 vs 319). I think getting two Marders and a change is a better option than getting 1 StuG.

And for me it is obvious that either Pz IV is too expensive or M4 is too cheap (I lean toward the latter). 50 point difference between the two.

M4 (Sherman Mid) - 190

M4A3 (75mm early) - 232
M4A3 (75mm mid) - 232

Does anyone even bother with M4A3s?

[Redwolf]

1 minute ago, Larsen said:

The best approach in my opinion would be for BFC to let games (us) mode the prices. Eventually the community will come to a certain compromise. Free market always finds the best price (even it the price changes with time).

[...]

And for me it is obvious that either Pz IV is too expensive or M4 is too cheap (I lean toward the latter). 50 point difference between the two.

M4 (Sherman Mid) - 190

M4A3 (75mm early) - 232
M4A3 (75mm mid) - 232

Does anyone even bother with M4A3s?

Ideally we would be able to load an XML file (or whatever format) with a price list. But that is not going to happen I'm afraid. On the bright side, there are not that many pricing issues that many people complain about. So if we get this one out of the way that would leave us with a better game.

As you say, some price differences between some Sherman models are also puzzling. I don't bother unless I can have a wet model. Maybe something was actually fatfingered when the cheapest one ended up sub-200.