Unit Cost Errors or Anomalies??

[dano6]

A plea to Charles or Steve:

The more I look at CM’s unit pricing, the more questions I have. Fionn and me have had some major discussions regarding the costing of units in the game. Fionn has said that there is a formula that determines the cost of a unit taking into account many things. Now I believe that this formula is skewed, because pricing does not reflect the realistic effectiveness of some units, especially allied armor units. I believe that too much weight has been given to certain aspects and not enough in other areas. There are three major categories that should be considered: Firepower, Armor, and Speed, all the other little things should be much lower on the totem pole. I am going to give a list of allied vehicles and comparisons to other vehicles that are German. Charles or Steve please give explanations for what I see as over-costing of a vehicles effectiveness.

Example #1: M5A1 Stuart

Cost: 104 pts

Comparison: Mk.IVH, Stug IIIG

Cost: 122 pts, 83 pts respectively

Now the Stuart costs only 18pts less than the Mk.IV but 21 pts more than the Stug III. From this costing what you are saying is that the Stuart is almost as effective as the Mk.IV but more effective than the Stug IIIG. This is very interesting. Here are my comparisons below.

Armor: Stug and Mk.IV have the Stuart licked by a huge margin. The Stuart is vulnerable to every AT, HE, and AA gun out there. Life expectancy of the Stuart: none.

AT firepower: Both German tanks have the Stuart licked again. No need for explanation

Anti-Personnel Firepower: German main guns add more firepower than the measly 37mm can make up with an extra MG.

Ammo: The Stuart holds more main gun ammo than either German but hell its effectiveness is almost nil. So what if a tank holds a 100 rounds of spit wads.

Turret: Stug doesn’t have one, So the stug is the loser here. Definite loss of shooting while on the move. But the Mk.IV has one. Making it equal.

Gyrostabilizer: Stuart has one, none of the Germans have this. Realistic effectiveness, not much most crews disabled these. As for the game should not be much of an increase.

Speed: Stuart has them licked on this one. But not by as much as the Germans have the Stuart licked in the Firepower and Armor categories.

Now here is the kicker. The M5A1 costs more than the M24 Chaffee, which replaced the Stuart and was an extremely better light tank. The M5A1 cost 14 pts more than the M24. (104-90) The only thing the Stuart was used for in 1944-45 was for flank protection. And if really hard-pressed it was used on the front-line.

Are we saying here that the Stuart was better than a Stug III by a bunch? And almost as good as a Mk.IV? Also the M4A1 early Sherman only costs 11 pts more than the M5A1. So the Stuart was that close to a Sherman? I don’t think so.

Example #2: M4A3(75)W+

Cost: 180 pts.

Comparison: Tiger 1E, Pz.IVH

Cost: 180, 122 comparitively

Now here again the up armored Sherman costs the same as a Tiger and 58 pts more than a Mk.IV. 58 pts is a pretty big difference.

Armor: The Sherman has both beat from the front hull perspective. But the Tiger has the Sherman beat good at the turret, and the Mk.IV is equal at the turret. Sides, the Tiger has the Sherman beat good, and the Mk.IV is equal. Looks like a wash for the Tiger and the Sherman has the Mk.IV beat pretty good.

AT Firepower: Tiger has the Sherman whipped and the Mk.IV beats the Sherman by a bunch also.

Anti-Personnel Firepower: Tiger has the Sherman whipped again. Mk.IV and Sherman real close with a little advantage to the Sherman.

Ammo: Sherman carries more than either. But the Tigers shells are much bigger so about equal. Mk.IV loses here as well. Just not as much storage as the Sherman.

Turret: Sherman beats both with a faster turret rotation

Gyrostabilizer: Sherman has one, Germans don’t

Speed: Sherman has both Germans beat.

Now here is the comparison. Is this Sherman the equal of the Tiger? Hell no. Now here is my question, Is the added armor to the front hull worth the 33 pts that the game says it is? I don’t think so. Now back to the comparison. The Tiger has the Sherman beat badly in the firepower area, armor is pretty close-tie, and the speed goes to the Sherman. Now the Tiger beats the Sherman so badly in the Firepower area that none of the other things can make that up. Gyrostabilizer should be way small and ammo is a wash. Comes down to this, the Mk.IV while outmatched by this Sherman is not that badly outmatched, but the points don’t show this. Instead it is compared to the Tiger which outmatches this tank. The points difference is too great between the Mk.IV and the Sherman, and it should be less than the Tiger.

It seems that little things like gyrostabilizers and turret rotation are weighted much too heavily in the calculation of the pts. Firepower, Armor, and Speed are the major factors in a tanks’ effectiveness. The little things should just be factors in these catagories. Such as ammo storage and gyrostabilization should be factors in firepower. But hell the 75 can’t compare to the 88 even with these thing added.

I just believe that something in the formula is skewed and not calculating these values correctly, maybe there needs a little tweaking. Or maybe there is an error. There are plenty more of these that I can put down, but I think this should suffice for now.

Steve or Charles I would appreciate your imput on these questions

Thank you

dano6

[killmore]

I do agree with you somewhat. I found German tanks too expensive.

[TZEENCH]

Dano6 -

At least you can get more that one medium tank- 200Pts for a tiger is alittle much if you nole have 300 for armour.

Besides the M5 can outflank those poor german tanks before a shot can be fired.

See you on the battle field

[Fionn]

Killmore,

Dan's contention is that German tanks aren't expensive enough .

I don't agree with a lot of his reasoning though but I'll stay out of this on the forum.

[dano6]

Fionn and I have already hashed this out. We have agreed to disagree. Now the evidence presented above should bring up some questions. As for the M4A3 flanking the Tiger, it still couldn't kill it from the side either. It would to flank it all the way to the rear. Unless of course it was within 100m. I just don't see the cost being the same for both. And remember that the Germans didn't have many heavy tanks on the battlefields on the western front. Now the Pz.IV costs less that a newer 75 Sherman so you can have plenty of medium tanks. And hell the Stug is a bargain. Seems if you want some descent German tanks you can have tons but the US can only load up on the crap and it can't even really do that.

dano6

[Cueball]

The problem is that your comparing one tank vs. one tank and making the assumption that points costs being equal, the tanks should be able to square off each other evenly.

I disagree.

The Tiger is a much better tank killer than the M4A3+. However, the M4 is a better utility vehicle against softer targets. If I had 4 halftracks that had to cross a field, I much rather my opponent have a Tiger shooting at them than the M4. The Tiger's ROF and turret rotation are slower, and the M4 has *three* MG's, one of them being the dreaded .50 cal. The blast effect of the 88 on the Tiger is greater, but the M4 can bring more rounds to target in the same time period.

Look at the Wirbelwind. It costs around 107 (?) points. Would it be able to square off against a M24 Chaffee? Heck no, but which would you rather have when an aircraft showed up? If you've never tried it, see what a Wirbelwind can do against a group of halftracks and trucks. It's truly frightening.

There's more to point value than which two units can kill each other. Overall usefulness is often not reflected in mere statistics.

[dano6]

Cueball while your differences in are noted, if you notice my comparison in no way puts these tanks against one another in tank v tank engagement. It does in fact compare their qualities against one another. How else do you know what point value is for. With nothing to compare equivalent points values to then they are just arbitrary.

Now with the example of the Sherman as a utility tank, that is true but the Tiger still wins in your comparison, what you are doing is putting them in engagements. Just to show you where you are wrong. Take the Tiger and Sherman against some HTs at long range in open country. The Tiger wins out big time. The Sherman probably couldn't hit the HTs at long range 1500m+. You are just fitting the engagement to what you believe. You can always turn an engagement around to fit what you want to happen.

In the above, the three features of the tank are compared, Armor, Firepower, and Mobility. They are not put into engagements that fit outcomes, they are just compared to one another.

Now you just compared the wirblewind to the above example: OK, Wriblewind Pz.IV chasis with an open top quad 20mm.

Lets see:

Armor: hull armor same as a pz.IV. Turret armor weak do to the use a AA. At a disadvantage.

AT firepower: Great against light armor. Against tanks no chance.

Anti-personnel firepower: Huge....

No stabilizer, fast turret.

Mobility: same as Pz.IV

From the above I would assume that this vehicle would cost less than a Pz.IV by a little due to the reduced armor and AT peformance but humungous gain in Anti-personnel firepower. And guess what it does. 107 is less than 122.

And there is nothing to compare it to on the US side as the m16 quad .50 halftrack isn't there. I would assume that this should cost about 70-80 if comparable to the wirblewind.

But I bet that it would cost 100 just due to the higher US equipment costs.

dano6

[von Lucke]

I understand the point yr trying to make --- that compared individually, certain units seemingly belie their point values --- but I also think yr leaving a very important factor out of the equation:

Rarity.

Okay, so a Sherman Jumbo and a Tiger I are equal in points --- obviously not based on the standard equipment they rolled off the show-room floor with. It comes down to numbers available. Tweaking point values to reflect Rarity Factor is a time tested method of keeping builds semi-historical.

[killmore]

Please don't twick points to include rarity.

Heavy tanks feel too expensive only because I had lots of luck in killing it with same number of cheap shermans.

In Vot Panter feels tough but I tried once Panter vs 3 Stuarts. That was stupid. Stuart nailed panter easy from 200 meters. First shot and front shot. Call it luck.

My problem is that tanks that should be tought are quite easy to kill. Maybe thats because most encounter take place at short distances on the maps I am playing.

Also the problem is turret rotation/target selection. It is easier to kill tank which is not firing at you.

[killmore]

Fionn - I am talking about the other side of the scale. (Heavy tanks)

Over all except pupchen I don't think values are that bad. What I really hate is that Quick battles allow only 1000 points.

By the way Fionn: You complained about survivability of hetzer once. I had seen many ricoshets of its front armour... So it could be usefull against lesser tanks.

[This message has been edited by killmore (edited 06-30-2000).]

[This message has been edited by killmore (edited 06-30-2000).]

[dano6]

Actaully, I know this, rarity is not figured into the points at all. It is all based on performance and effectiveness. By the way the M4A3E2 Jumbo costs 15 pts more than a Tiger.

Killmore, I am not stating that point values should be skewed due to rarity. I am just stating that some items on US tanks might be weighted a little too heavy in point consideration.

By the way the stuart kill of the panther had to be from the side. If you let a tank flank you then it is your fault that your tank died. Remember the Panther is only tough from the front. And there is no way a stuart could have killed it from the front.

dano6

[killmore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dano6:

Killmore, I am not stating that point values should be skewed due to rarity. I am just stating that some items on US tanks might be weighted a little too heavy in point consideration.

dano6<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't - someone else did.

Stuart... vs panter?- Well to be correct first shot damaged panter gun second front shot killed panter. It came as a total suprise to me. I had 2 other stuarts prepared to attack from left and right flank but the Stuart in front just run into panter LOS by mistake. I could not believe it myself. My plan to have fun with panter was interrupted by a great shot from stuard. I did not notice "Weak point penetration" - but maybe thats exactly what happened.

[Fionn]

Well, I believe I complained about the Hetzer because I found a bug which allows some units which NEVER should be able to kill a tank to kill the Hetzer. I won't say it here since it's unbalancing to the game but I'm gathering evidence to present to argue for a fix.

[dano6]

Fionn, I hope you aren't talking about a 76mm hole in a hetzer. HEHEHEHE!

dano6

[killmore]

Gee I must be getting old - seems like I keep misunderstanding posts...

What was it that was killing hetzer?

[MarkEzra]

I hadn't paid any attention to the relative value of Allied and german vehicles. Something does come to mind as I read (with some interest, I should add) these post: How is availabilty factored into the purchase cost. Allied units had full production in 1944-5 and produced something like 50K Shermans of all types during the war. german production was limited....The tanks lost at Kursk were never fully made up for. Is this taken in consideration?...If so why does a light use Tank like the M5 have such a steep price tag. And why is it I can't buy a full Platoon of Sherman's without taking a second out on the farm?

[dano6]

Again rarity or the opposite, plentifulness(if that is a word) is not considered in the cost of a unit. the question comes down to this. Are the pts values really applicable to the effectiveness of the US tanks. I again restate that I believe that some of the factors that are considered into the pts totals for the US tanks are over applied to the equation that computes the cost. I would still love to hear from Steve or Charles on this matter.

dano6

[Fionn]

Sorry Killmore but I don't want to say in case it becomes a common PBEM cheat. It is a common weapon and I don't want people using it as a "super-cheap Hetzer killer"