The costs of 88mmPAK vs Elephant

[Scipio]

Why costs a German 88mm PAK more then a Elephant tank with the same gun?

A hint to the people who will recomment the search function : please don't bore me.

[Priest]

DOH!

[ 08-11-2001: Message edited by: Priest ]

[ASL Veteran]

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

Why costs a German 88mm PAK more then a Elephant tank with the same gun?

A hint to the people who will recomment the search function : please don't bore me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CMBB isn't out yet so I'm just curious how you know how much an Elephant costs?

[Sitzkrieg]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

CMBB isn't out yet so I'm just curious how you know how much an Elephant costs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe what Scipio is talking about is the Nashorn.

[Scipio]

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

I believe what Scipio is talking about is the Nashorn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, yes, I mean the Nashorn

[JasonC]

The towed versions cost more, which does seem off to me. I'd certainly prefer the mobile gun. The towed ones had ~10 extra AP rounds but the same HE load, and the Nashorn has over 20 AP which is usually plenty. The also hide better and have a lower sillouette, but compared to armor proof against small arms and above all mobility, those seem tiny.

It is also noteworthy that the 88 pillbox costs almost twice as much as either. It is just as easy to spot as the Nashorn, and just as immobile as the towed guns. If does have a larger ammo load, with 30 odd HE shell rather than a dozen. And of course much thicker armor protection than the Nashorn - but still vunerable to direct hits by tanks.

Personally, I think the better towed AT guns are overpriced. The German 50mm is too cheap, the PAK 40 is about right. I can see paying 85 for a regular 88 Flak sometimes, if the map is huge. But the 88 Pak cost too much for their added effectiveness.

I also think all the turretless German AFVs are underpriced, relative bargains. Especially the Hetzer and StuH, but also the Marders, StuG, Nashorn, and Jadgpanzer. Compared to plain jane 75mm, turreted Allied tanks, all have much greater effectiveness in armor to armor fights, for the points.

[Scipio]

I guess, the purchase costs are generally not very realistic.

I remember something that it should (also) model the rarity of a unit. But doing this by using purchase points only is - IMO - bull****. It would be more sensefull if the game generates the types and numbers of available units, combined with a realistic purchase system.

In reality, a commander can request special units - especially tanks/support/artillery, but that doesn't mean that he will get them.

Please don't ask me how to model that!

[Andreas]

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

I guess, the purchase costs are generally not very realistic.

I remember something that it should (also) model the rarity of a unit. But doing this by using purchase points only is - IMO - bull****. It would be more sensefull if the game generates the types and numbers of available units, combined with a realistic purchase system.

In reality, a commander can request special units - especially tanks/support/artillery, but that doesn't mean that he will get them.

Please don't ask me how to model that!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The current system does NOT take rarity into account. You heard wrong. There will be a different system (optional) in CMBB. I am sure BTS would love to hear ideas about how to deal with rarity. For those thinking their solution is BS, they will be able to turn it off. Isn't life wonderful?

[Andrew H.]

WRT purchase costs, it makes sense to me that the Nashorn would be cheaper than the towed gun, simply because thin-skinned vehicles like the Nashorn can be knocked out by all kinds of weapons more easily than their towed counterparts.

Daimlers and Greyhounds can easily knock out Nashoerner ( ), at decent ranges, much more easily than they could knock out an AT gun. Especially if the AT gun were dug in.

.50 cals are also effective vs. Nashorns at common CM ranges. They are much more effective against thin-skinned vehicles than they are vs. AT guns.

The same is true of small mortars.

But even regular tanks seem to be more effective against the Nashorn than against AT guns (at least dug in AT guns). At least in my experience, a regular tank will hit and knock out a big target like the Nashorn more quickly than it can put an AT gun out of commission using HE.

And it is much more likely that a Nashorn will be spotted before it shoots than an AT gun.

It is true that the Nashorn provides protection vs. infantry small arms...but I almost never have AT guns taken out by infantry small arms, as AT guns tend to be deployed far enough back that infantry can't bring effective fire to bear.

I think that if CM were such that a common engagement range was 1500 meters or so, the Nashorn would be a more useful weapon. But when it commonly runs into the enemy at ranges from 500 to 800 meters, it is more vulnerable than a regular AT gun, which can at least stay hidden.

[Clay]

You can hide a dug in AT gun in the woods (which offers coverage), but not a Nashorn.... Makes a big difference IMHO

[nothing fancy, just Steve]

Try "Fast Moving" (arty shift)that Pak when the spotting round hits. Especially in the woods where it will suffer from the dreaded air burst. Of course it's always fun to move the Pak after it's LOS has been obscured by smoke. :eek:

[Vanir Ausf B]

I agree with Andrew and Clay.

In addition, the PAK gun carries 10 more rounds than the Nashorn (50 vs. 40).

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nothing fancy, just Steve:

Try "Fast Moving" (arty shift)that Pak when the spotting round hits. Especially in the woods where it will suffer from the dreaded air burst. Of course it's always fun to move the Pak after it's LOS has been obscured by smoke. :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but... The important thing here is that because of the PAKs ability to remain hidden while in LOS of the enemy until it opens fire (try that with a Nashorn), if the enemy is hitting it with arty that usually means the PAK has already made its first kill.

[JasonC]

Sure, right. If being able to hide is worth so much, why isn't a US M-10 tank destroyer less expensive than a US 76mm anti-tank gun?

[manchildstein (ii)]

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

I also think all the turretless German AFVs are underpriced, relative bargains. Especially the Hetzer and StuH, but also the Marders, StuG, Nashorn, and Jadgpanzer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

my favorite is the StuG IV with its 63 ammo loadout...only 90 points for green...

andy

[JasonC]

The truth of the matter is the CM cost model assumes a vehicle without a turret is crippled by the lack, compared to either a turreted vehicle or a gun on the ground. The result is all the German beasties without them are bargains, because that just isn't so in practice - in the small fights CM covers and with the existing whole-vehicle turning speeds, anyway.

[FFE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

It is true that the Nashorn provides protection vs. infantry small arms...but I almost never have AT guns taken out by infantry small arms, as AT guns tend to be deployed far enough back that infantry can't bring effective fire to bear..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You cannot have it both ways. Ideally, the Nashorn ought to be used like an AT gun, at (long) range so small arms (and even .50cals) are pointless. I've laughed many, many times when I see 600+ meter .50 cal shots at light skinned vehicles. Great! Waste them .50 cal rounds.

But as a counter position, why is the Archer more costly than a 17lb ATG? The Archer has no turret and the hunt command is all but useless. It is true the Archer has 10 less ammo, similar to the Nashorn vs. 88mm ATG comparison. Yet we find the Nashorn costing less.

Turrets are not that advantageous. A turret will turn and fire off at infantry, while the tank is using the hunt command. This is not generally a good thing, especially if the tank is trying to hunt enemy armor. Many, if not all, players have experienced at one time or another a tank turning its turret 90+ degrees to get a partial shot at some pointless target when you wanted the tank to hunt enemy armor. Turrets are not that much of an advantage. Besides, how often does does an immoblized tank live? Sure a turret does help, but when a tank loses its mobility it tends to die fast. Using this rationale, ATG's die just as quickly.

[Mattias]

Jason points out one very important factor, CM’s frugal modelling of mobility. Only very few of the vehicles modelled had the ability to turn on a dime. This obscures one very significant weakness that some of the turretless vehicles in the game had in real life.

In real life the lack of a turret was recognised as an acceptable trade-off only because other benefits were to be had. But because CM underplays the disadvantages this design incurred one might get the impression that the turretless vehicles are less handicapped than they where in actuality.

The current model was no doubt a necessary abstraction in CM though. A “real life” model would complicate things quite a bit and make life hard for the AI.

M.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Sure, right. If being able to hide is worth so much, why isn't a US M-10 tank destroyer less expensive than a US 76mm anti-tank gun?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The M-10 has more advantages over the 76mm AT than the Nashorn does over the Pak43, including a larger ammo load. In fact, with the notable exception of the gun the M-10 is a better all around vehicle than the Nashorn while the 76mm AT is markedly inferior to the PaK43.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>FFE:

Ideally, the Nashorn ought to be used like an AT gun, at (long) range so small arms (and even .50cals) are pointless<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but easier said than done on most CM maps. Should be more feasable in CM2.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But as a counter position, why is the Archer more costly than a 17lb ATG? The Archer has no turret and the hunt command is all but useless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. I suspect the Archer's unique handicap may not have been factored into its price.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mattias:

Only very few of the vehicles modelled had the ability to turn on a dime. This obscures one very significant weakness that some of the turretless vehicles in the game had in real life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true and I agree that German turretless vehicles seem to be priced more in accordance with their real world effectiveness rather than their in-game effectiveness. I would like to see this looked at for CM2.