Petition to equalize QB prices of some similar WW2 tanks

[Freyberg]

2 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

What would you say is a typical engagement range in CMx2? I can set up a little shootout for it.

There are plenty of great QB and Master Maps - I think it's peculiar if first engagement ranges, especially between tanks are less than 1000m - quite often longer.

As I say - I mostly play attack scenarios - ME is a historical outlier - and a defender that doesn't have AFVs well positioned in the 1000m range (or more) is already at a tactical disadvantage.

Think Operation Goodwood...

[Freyberg]

8 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

...now the German shots start bouncing off the upper hull of the Sherman

It's unusual to see German high velocity round 'bouncing off' a low budget Sherman at any range. Those very basic M4s can't take much of a hit.

They may not lose their crew (a well designed tank for crew survival), but being still combat capable after a hit from a PzIV or Stug, even at range, requires pretty good luck.

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

Real tankers neither choose the "map"

Where do you get that information from? The allies certainly choose bocage country when they planned D-Day and the Germans selected the Ardennes and the weather before the Battle of the Bulge. WW2 tactics of the Sherman vs German tanks. The Cats, shoot at them with HE combined with WP this often set the German tanks alight. We can't do this in Combat mission. But we certainly can use smoke which permits you to close in and overwhelm them. A December Morning in FB you counter a King Tiger which shows the flank not hard to knock it out with the 76 mm. You need to use the Jumbo Shermans first just to make sure it it doesn't point the gun towards the 76mm Sherman. I don't think it works against a human player. Playing the AI is a sandbox experience it means you can work out tactical models. You must flank German tanks to brew them up. 

[Erwin]

4 hours ago, Freyberg said:

It's unusual to see German high velocity round 'bouncing off' a low budget Sherman at any range. Those very basic M4s can't take much of a hit.

In ranges around 1500 meters and more, it's very common to see (eg Panther) AP bounce off an M4.  Playing the CMBN "Fire Brigade" scenario which allows for combat at up to 2 Km and this was happening regularly.  Accuracy is also poor over 1 Km.

[Larsen]

I really think that these tank vs rank discussions detract from the main point.

StuG with its 18 HE shells and literally no MG can support infantry for 4-5 turns. After that the Allies infantry can pretty much ignore it. The rest - mediocre armor, no turret just adds questions about its QB pricing.

I don't know what QBs you play, so far the ones that I played had rather short LOS (300-500m) due to trees, bocages, houses etc. The largest maps I saw were something like 2km by 2km and they are very few of those. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by Larsen

[Redwolf]

16 minutes ago, Larsen said:

I really think that these tank vs rank discussions detract from the main point.

StuG with its 18 HE shells and literally no MG can support infantry for 4-5 turns. After that the Allies infantry can pretty much ignore it. The rest - mediocre armor, no turret just adds questions about its QB pricing.

I don't know what QBs you play, so far the ones that I played had rather short LOS (300-500m) due to trees, bocages, houses etc. The largest maps I saw were something like 2km by 2km and they are very few of those. 

Exactly.

[Pelican Pal]

1 hour ago, Larsen said:

I really think that these tank vs rank discussions detract from the main point.

Yes, and again it creates a situation where competitive German players are picking Panthers. The issue isn't so much that this creates a balance problem but that it denudes QBs of variety because players aren't going to waste points on Stugs and whatnot.

Essentially I'm seeing this whole thread not as a balance request, but as a diversity request. And sure people can make the argument that you just house rule it but most players are going to be playing using the standard rules. This will only become more common once Slithirine finally released their built-in QB system.

[Redwolf]

6 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:

Essentially I'm seeing this whole thread not as a balance request, but as a diversity request. And sure people can make the argument that you just house rule it but most players are going to be playing using the standard rules. This will only become more common once Slithirine finally released their built-in QB system.

Yes, in a way this issue negates the rarity system.

It's nice that a Pz IV, a StuG and a Panther have zero (standard) rarity. So that, in theory, people usually roll around in a mix of these most common vehicles. But it doesn't do any good if the purchase price of the StuG is 299 and a Panther is 365.

All the while a Sherman is 190. Regardless of whether you want to compete with the Sherman on anti-armor capability or anti-infantry capability, either way the Panther is the better choice at only 66 points more.

And as you say, we better fix it before or at the same time we hit Steam and PBEM+++. Otherwise we will have this same debate, but with people who will just stay away quickly.

[Larsen]

It's interesting that there is no a single comment from the creators of Combat Mission as if this thread had nothing to do with their game.

[domfluff]

Given the aneurysm that this kind of discussion apparently gave Steve during CMx1, and the lack of discussion of QB prices since CMx2 has existed, I'm not surprised.

What does disappoint me, is that in this thread there is no attempt to understand why this kind of system might exist. There's a lot of projection, and assertions about what a points-buy system is supposed to be, but little attempt to empathise or see another point of view.

[Larsen]

Ee... This whole thread is about understanding why StuGs, Pz IVs and M4 s are priced a certain way. There are different arguments but the only people who can give a definite answer are those who built the game and who don't participate in the discussion.

Allegedly, there is some kind of formula. And nobody knows what is inside that formula.

[Pelican Pal]

Historically it has been a rarity for QB prices to be adjusted and generally a rarity for them to comment on it. As much as I would like to see a reduction in price this is all essentially meaningless. Although there have been a couple of occasions in CMx2 where the QB prices have been adjusted.

Just generally I get the impression that the QB system is fairly low on the priority list so it won't be looked at unless something is outright broken. Handing pricing off to the community in the form of XML or somesuch would be beneficial since players would be able to more formally "house rule" the game instead of jumping through incessant hoops.

46 minutes ago, Larsen said:

This whole thread is about understanding why StuGs, Pz IVs and M4 s are priced a certain way.

Really I don't even think this matters. What does matter is the in-game result which leans pretty heavily on "the cats".

 

[Redwolf]

Heck, even the CMBO demo directly said that the Sherman and StuG are very even. What happened?

And as Pelican Pal correctly said, it would be prudent to fix this before the WW2 titles hit steam and all the - so we hope - new PBEM(+++) players. And a patch is needed anyway for that.

[Artkin]

It's time to settle down and fix the bugs IMO. We have enough games at the moment.

[chuckdyke]

7 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

very even.

In what? Concealment goes to the Stug III. The gun the 7.5 cm KwK 40 penetrates 109 mm at 1000 meters the 7.5 cm of the Sherman 86 mm at 1000 meters. Plus the production figures of each vehicle makes the Sherman cheaper also in RL. Here are my references in gun performances. 

7.5 cm KwK 40 - Wikipedia

75mm gun M2–M6 - Wikipedia

The 7.5 cm KwK 40 was specially designed tank gun adapted from the PAK 40. Its performance is in the same class as the 76mm on the easy eight Sherman. I think the petition is doomed to fail, I agree Battlefront should be more upfront with their formula. I have no problem with the Stug III if I encounter one in the game I attack it with a platoon. 

[Redwolf]

15 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

In what? Concealment goes to the Stug III. The gun the 7.5 cm KwK 40 penetrates 109 mm at 1000 meters the 7.5 cm of the Sherman 86 mm at 1000 meters. Plus the production figures of each vehicle makes the Sherman cheaper also in RL. Here are my references in gun performances. 

7.5 cm KwK 40 - Wikipedia

75mm gun M2–M6 - Wikipedia

The 7.5 cm KwK 40 was specially designed tank gun adapted from the PAK 40. Its performance is in the same class as the 76mm on the easy eight Sherman. I think the petition is doomed to fail, I agree Battlefront should be more upfront with their formula. I have no problem with the Stug III if I encounter one in the game I attack it with a platoon. 

Again, it isn't just about tank versus tank duels.

The advantages of the Sherman, again:

On 10/31/2021 at 12:15 PM, 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?

 

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

How can that look right to anyone?

Test it! like I said Battlefront needs to be transparant with their formula. I think it has to do with the WW2 actual production figures to make a scenario historically accurate. I never duel during a battle and especially not against a StuG III. Their crew was artillery and also had better optics. 

[Redwolf]

7 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Test it! like I said Battlefront needs to be transparant with their formula. I think it has to do with the WW2 actual production figures to make a scenario historically accurate. I never duel during a battle and especially not against a StuG III. Their crew was artillery and also had better optics. 

... and production figures have nothing to do with purchase points at all.

Himmelherrgott

[chuckdyke]

13 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

.50 cal on top

Ever tried to use it? I did and on light only the 76 mm Sherman used it, FB Chaumont first round. The 75 mm Sherman used only the go axial. Something which should be addressed I like to use the .50 call for a recon by fire. 

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

and production figures have nothing to do with purchase points at all.

I don't know their formula I will support a petition for a transparant formula. The Stug III is not a tank but an AFV. I know it is academic if it was assigned to a tank unit it probably was used as an tank. Infantry probably used it as an AT-Gun or field gun. The crew was artillery and probably had better optics for long range gunnery and received more training. But Battlefront at present chooses not to inform the customers. Could be they would publish spoilers.  

[chuckdyke]

Some more information of the Stug III it could explain some of the factors why it is expensive in CM.

Sturmgeschütz III (1938) (tanks-encyclopedia.com)

[Larsen]

I see that @chuckdyke is undeterred by logics. OK. Let me try a different approach. It looks like you are a big fun of big guns - the bigger the better. The StuG gun is at 75mm gun The armor is 80mm, I believe upper hull has 10% slope. It costs 299 points. 

M4A3 (76) early is 256. It has a bigger gun, sloped lower and upper hull armor (45 and 55 degrees, I believe) and a similar turret armor to StuG (I think it is something like 75mm) that is also a bit sloped (correct me here if I am wrong). I know you don't care about the HE, MG and everything since those deal with the guys that carry really small guns but it has 40 rounds of 76mm HE and over 6K of MG ammo. How that is fair? If StuG is 299 then M4A3 (76) should cost like Panther at the very least.

[Freyberg]

1 hour ago, Larsen said:

I see that @chuckdyke is undeterred by logics.

That's mean.

Don't be mean.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Larsen said:

The StuG gun is at 75mm gun

You're like the copper comparing a .22 LR with a .223 Remington aka 5.56 mm NATO because the difference is only 0.003 inch. The 75mm KwK means Kampwagen Kanone or a dedicated tank gun. The allies either put an AT Gun  less HE performance or a Field Gun less AP performance.in their tanks not a tank gun. I am not for the petition nor against it just think of some arguments BF may use. If it is really unfair you should be able to convince BF and not me. Page 25 of the manual you can also adjust your units if you think your scenario is unbalanced. Force Adjustment - allows playing an unbalanced QB. If set to the default “no change”, both sides will have the default amount of purchase points available to buy their units with. The options allow you to give up to an extra 150% of units, or to deduct up to 60%. I understand you could increase the value of a Stug III by 210 % by increasing the points of a German unit up to 150% and decreasing allied units by 60%.

[Larsen]

Ah... you are at it again.

First if all the US 76mm gun is a gun designed specifically for use in tanks (at least according to wiki). Second, I don't see how that is relevant. Its characteristics are very similar to what StuG fields in.

M4A3 has more HE, turret, 3 MG with abundant ammo, better spotting, somewhat similar armor and yet it is more than 40 points cheaper.

Giving extra points to one side is not a solution. The whole idea of points is to access a value of certain unit in general situations. StuGs are prices out of QBs as of right now. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Larsen