Petition to equalize QB prices of some similar WW2 tanks

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, Redwolf said:

Are you saying the StuG spots better in CMx2?

No I am just hammering it needs infantry nearby preferably on the engine deck. It makes it highly effective. Also if a unit is Veteran or better it spots better. You need to publish the crews and the training if you buy a units. I never look at it. Look at a battle and if Stug III were used I buy them. 

[Redwolf]

9 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

No I am just hammering it needs infantry nearby preferably on the engine deck. It makes it highly effective. Also if a unit is Veteran or better it spots better. 

How is that different from any other closed-top AFV in CMx2?

Edited November 14, 2021 by Redwolf

[chuckdyke]

4 minutes ago, holoween said:

If i have to be better than the oponent to have equal chances my kit is worse and should therefore cost less.

I think here is where our opinions differ. It is the persons philosophy when you play the game. Historical a platoon of three Stug III crewed by veterans opposed by a company of JS2's crewed by a mix from a Veteran HQ with green and conscript crews. You probably lose with your three overpriced Stug III but with the parameters you may get a tactical victory. The prices may be influenced by the historical battles. Nothing wrong with your petition it goes with your philosophy when you play the game. You have the right to get fun out of the game. 

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

How is that different from any other open-closed AFV in CMx2?

You need to ask the people setting the prices of how they calculate. You may very well be right but at present our opinions are subjective. I like to see an objective answer. 

[holoween]

45 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

I think here is where our opinions differ. It is the persons philosophy when you play the game. Historical a platoon of three Stug III crewed by veterans opposed by a company of JS2's crewed by a mix from a Veteran HQ with green and conscript crews. You probably lose with your three overpriced Stug III but with the parameters you may get a tactical victory. The prices may be influenced by the historical battles. Nothing wrong with your petition it goes with your philosophy when you play the game. You have the right to get fun out of the game. 

For scenarios pints practically dont matter only in qb.

So arguing with scenarios isnt relevant to the discussion.

 

[Freyberg]

7 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

For actual reasons?

Sorry - I don't think there's an actual reason to have the Stug at or close to the points price of a basic M1...

[Redwolf]

18 minutes ago, Freyberg said:

Sorry - I don't think there's an actual reason to have the Stug at or close to the points price of a basic M1...

Do you play Quickbattles? I mean against humans.

[Bulletpoint]

41 minutes ago, Freyberg said:

Sorry - I don't think there's an actual reason to have the Stug at or close to the points price of a basic M1...

Many reasons have already been given in this thread. Such as the StuG lacking a turret, being short one MG, and having less ammo than the M1.

But don't worry. I won't insinuate you're a poor player or having Nazi sympathies for disagreeing with me on this.

[Lethaface]

On 11/2/2021 at 5:38 AM, Vanir Ausf B said:

I am somewhat sympathetic to the petition but I don't know what could be done about it. BFC have been consistently hostile to subjective price adjustments and without access to the formula it's hard to say how the changes could be made without introducing cascading effects throughout the system.

Discounting turretless vehicles would help the StuG, JPz IV and JPz IV/70(A) which I think are all a little pricey for what you get, but then the Hetzer, JPz IV/70(V) and Jagdpanther would also benefit and I don't think they need it.

The accusation hurled at the Panzer IV is that its front turret armor is thin so perhaps increasing the weighting of front turret armor in the formula would help. But the Panther and IS-2 have even weaker turret armor relative to their hull armor and so would also go down in price while Tiger tanks would go up.

This is my opinion as well. Although I feel that even the JPz IV 70, being the same price as the Panther, wouldn't hurt from being a bit cheaper.
But that's just details; the main point is that in QBs it seems turrets aren't accounted for any capability. Imo it's not about historical accuracy; the issue is that the capability of turreted vs turretless vehicles isn't being accounted for which leads to certain vehicles like Panthers to simply be the optimal choice; which from there leads to QBs almost always featuring panthers.

I also wouldn't mind if the cheapest Shermans would become a bit more expensive (the M4A3(W)75 etc are priced fine imo).

[Lethaface]

2 hours ago, Freyberg said:

Sorry - I don't think there's an actual reason to have the Stug at or close to the points price of a basic M1...

M1? I think the argument was about the M4 Sherman. Although I guess that's a typo.

[Redwolf]

I think I want to make a quick detour for those who think that the better gun makes the StuG so expensive (thinking AT capabilities make the majority of the price formula for some reason).

• Sherman 105 - 217 points
• StuH 105 mm - 270 points

Why? How? The StuH has 31 HE shells, 2 HEAT shells, 1 MG with low ammo. The Sherman has 53 HE shells, 5 HEAT, some smoke, apart from its own smoke launcher, 3 MGs incl. .50cal and a turret, one with thicker front armor than the StuH front.

 

[chuckdyke]

37 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

• Sherman 105 - 217 points
• StuH 105 mm - 270 points

Point taken. I think the purchase points should apply if you play the AI. On the other hand two players should be free to set their own parameters when they play the game. The Sherman 105 mm and the Stug III 105 mm should be the same in my humble opinion. For me the issue is over. I play QB H & H based on historical accuracy would be nice if we can field units without restrictions. Which can be done too in the editor just saving scenarios under a different name.