CM2, what's the right price for T-34, any guestimates?

[Jarmo]

Just passing my time here...

But anyway - let's assume the pricing system remains the same. (as it probably will).

T-34/67 has a good armour, on par with Sherman+, and a good mobility. The main weapon is similar in performance to Sherman's 75mm, but there would be less ammo. MG's of the two vehicles are of similar performance and ammo loadout.

This would suggest a price around 150pts.

But T-34's performance is hindered by the 2 man turret, poor observation possibilities when buttoned, weak optics and the lack of radios.

So. My guess is: About 100pts.

[Andrew H.]

I'd say 100 is about right, assuming (a big assumption, and one that's probably wrong) that other prices stay about the same. I reached the 100 number in a different way, though; an M4 costs 117 or so, IIRC, and a T-34 isn't as good as a Sherman b/c of the 2 man turret, amount of ammo carried, and some other reliability issues one hears about.

Putting the T-34 at about 100 b/c of its performance vis-a-vis an M4 also has the advantage of allowing us to see how much a T-34 would cost vs. MkIVs, Panthers, etc.

But, IIRC doesn't a Puma cost 99 pts or so? Wouldn't that suggest that a MkIII with the long 50 (i.e., same gun as the Puma) might cost more, which would make that tank more costly than a T-34?

Which, counterintuitive as it seems, may turn out to be proper pricing based on 3-man turret, rotation speed, accuracy, etc. But I think I'd rather have a T-34.

:cool:

[Echo]

4 good cigars, and a 6 pack of Warsteiner.

[Roborat]

I don't worry about the number of rounds carried when I consider the value of a tank. I consider myself lucky if I get off 5 rounds before my tank is killed.

[Jarmo]

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

I'd say 100 is about right, assuming (a big assumption, and one that's probably wrong) that other prices stay about the same. I reached the 100 number in a different way, though; an M4 costs 117 or so, IIRC, and a T-34 isn't as good as a Sherman b/c of the 2 man turret, amount of ammo carried, and some other reliability issues one hears about.

Putting the T-34 at about 100 b/c of its performance vis-a-vis an M4 also has the advantage of allowing us to see how much a T-34 would cost vs. MkIVs, Panthers, etc.

But, IIRC doesn't a Puma cost 99 pts or so? Wouldn't that suggest that a MkIII with the long 50 (i.e., same gun as the Puma) might cost more, which would make that tank more costly than a T-34?

Which, counterintuitive as it seems, may turn out to be proper pricing based on 3-man turret, rotation speed, accuracy, etc. But I think I'd rather have a T-34.

:cool:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[109 Gustav]

It would also depend on the turret traverse (one of my pet issues ) If it's modeled as always fast, because there was an electric motor, it would cost more than if it was modeled as slow traverse, because the motor usually broke.

My solution was to model traverse mechanism damage to tanks, and have the T34 be very vulnerable to this. We'll see what BTS decides on.

[SenorBeef]

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

Just passing my time here...

But anyway - let's assume the pricing system remains the same. (as it probably will).

T-34/67 has a good armour, on par with Sherman+, and a good mobility. The main weapon is similar in performance to Sherman's 75mm, but there would be less ammo. MG's of the two vehicles are of similar performance and ammo loadout.

This would suggest a price around 150pts.

But T-34's performance is hindered by the 2 man turret, poor observation possibilities when buttoned, weak optics and the lack of radios.

So. My guess is: About 100pts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would hope they'd have a dynamic pricing system based on time period.. In 1945, a t-34 is just another piece of metal, and I wouldn't expect it to cost more than 130 or 140 points, but the same t34 in 1941 is an ulcer to whoever faces it, and I'd hate to see people buying those cheaply. I suppose something could be balanced with relative pricing of other early war units, though.

[Peter Cairns]

Isn't there a historical basis for weighting tanks, the actual ability of a vehicle is one thing but surely as important is how likely you were to come across it It might be tough on the axis player but by 45 you could price a T-34/85 as low as 80 allowing the russian player to swamp there opponent.null

[The Commissar]

Were not later models of the T-34 upgraded with more reliable turret traverse, 3 man turret, and other improvements? If you price a hunk o' junk like the early T-34 at 100, the later models (the ones that actually worked properly) would cost well over 200! Thats just crazy, if you ask me. But no one ever does, so Ill just add my 2 cents and go.

Cheers!

[Jarmo]

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

But, IIRC doesn't a Puma cost 99 pts or so? Wouldn't that suggest that a MkIII with the long 50 (i.e., same gun as the Puma) might cost more, which would make that tank more costly than a T-34?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm.. my first try at answering flew out there somewhere...

Isn't Puma some 70 points, that would make PzIII maybe around 80-100pts.

It has more MG ammo and better armour than Puma, but it's less mobile

and a bigger target.

[ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: Jarmo ]

[Skipper]

> Were not later models of the T-34 upgraded

> with more reliable turret traverse, 3 man

> turret, and other improvements?

Was not EVERY SINGLE AFV that saw WWII service upgraded in the same way? Every machine has teething problems. Every machine was manufactured on many different plants, that had different equipment, technology, expertise and supplies available, at different time periods.

If you start counting such things as problematic turret motors, you might just as well count in some more important factors, ie: widely varying armor plate quality, welding technologies, roller bearings vs bushings, end user modifications, ad nauseum. You will end up with several dozen modifications for T-34, as well as Pz-III, Pz-V, etc, etc, etc.

More realistic (albeit voluntary) approach would be to have two or three "generic" T-34/76s - called something like prewar, '42 and '43 models. And price them accordingly.

[ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: Skipper ]

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:

hunk o' junk like the early T-34 at 100, the later models (the ones that actually worked properly) would cost well over 200! Thats just crazy

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nahh. A late T-34/85 wouldn't still be as good as Panther, so the price would be lower. Maybe 140-180 pts? :confused:

The rarity pricing system should take care of the advantage of the early T-34's. 100 base price might jump to several hundred points in the beginning of war, dropping to 100 sometime during 42-43.

One thing about the pricing scheme many will not like, is the fact that we'll see the german players using cheap Stug armies against more costly (and thereby less numerous) T-34/85's.

The same "problem" as we see with Shermans in CM1.

[Mattias]

Combat Mission is a game that can deliver fun, fast and challenging games, as well as hard core historical engagements

For former kind you use the quick battle generator. The buy point system is geared towards -balance-, hence it disregards historical availability considerations in favour of a cost/effectiveness evaluation.

For the latter kind you use the scenario builder in which the point cost of a unit has bugger all importance, one side can have 50 T/34's and the other 1 StuG.

Is it just me or are these two different aspects of CM continuously being mixed up?

M.

[endit]

I am no fountain of knowledge, but from my gaming experience the T34 was one fast tank. Maybe not in real life, does someone have the specs???? Also, it's cold weather operation may be a factor in the northern parts of the world that could drive the cost up.

[Jarmo]

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

Is it just me or are these two different aspects of CM continuously being mixed up?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are. That's almost what I meant.

Although I was typically obscure.

By a book in my table T-34 goes 55 km/h, close to Sherman.

Offroad speed was supposedly "good", thank's to the "excellent" suspension.

Whatever that really means...

[Canuck]

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

I don't worry about the number of rounds carried when I consider the value of a tank. I consider myself lucky if I get off 5 rounds before my tank is killed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are a wise wise man

[Panzer_Meyer]

If BTS is doing the availibily option for CM2, then in 42 the T-34 should be much cheaper and avialibale in numbers. I think the price should be about the same as a STUG IV now, 95 points. Since the STUG AFV was the most produced AFV by the Germans in WWII.

The T-34 was also the most produced so I think it should be cheaper than any other AFV the Russians have later on.

[ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: Rommel22 ]

[Mattias]

Hmmm... Please enlighten me.

What is the point of letting availability be reflected in points cost?

Firstly, In quick battles this approach would unbalance the game, thereby detracting from the goal of a "fair" fight.

Secondly, in a designed scenario it would not matter, since buy points are irrelevant there.

The only way I can see it working is if availability is represented by some types not being available at all or in limited numbers in a quick battles taking place during certain periods. Either by a fixed schedule or randomly according to a historical distribution.

M.

[Jarmo]

4. Things about the rarity pricing:

1. There will be a rarity system in CM2, it will make the rare units expensive.

2. The purpose is to make gamers use the more common units in quick battles.

3. Sometimes you can get rare units at normal (or close to normal) prices.

4. The system will be optional.

For more info and BTS statements, do a search with "rarity" + "optional".

I'd do it, but searching sucks.

[endit]

I believe that CM takes rarity into account, I was under the impression that one couldn't by 4 king tigers, even though he had the points. Only so many to go around. I'm not an expert on the game, but I thought I read that somewhere.

[Mattias]

Thanks Jarmo. It was a bit of a rhetorical question on my part but it is worth repeating nevertheless

M.

[Olle Petersson]

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

I believe that CM takes rarity into account, ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, it doesn't. (Which is a good thing, IMO.)

The best (and for now, only) way to deal with rarity is to make an agreement with your opponent, or to design your own scenarios.

Cheers

Olle

[Commissar]

The talk of cost of any weapon would have to factor availability within any particular year. Also, there were different models of the T-34. The Sherman a better tank than the T-34? In terms of comfort for the crew and overall finish, that is probably true. The Soviets had lend-lease Shermans, both the 75 and 76mm versions. They did not have a good opinion of them. They had a high profile that made them easier to spot and harder to conceal and made them easy to tip over. I think they were real gas hogs as well. The armor protection wasn't anything to brag about either (not crappy but not overwhelmingly wonderful either). In terms of effectiveness on the Eastern Front, the T-34 was by far much more influential in both combat and in tank design of other countries. But then again, as one observer stated, talking about the best or better tank is a loaded question. It depends what you consider best and people don't always have the same criteria for that. For the Russians, the Sherman didn't work well with Eastern front combat or Russian sensibilities. Take a look at the web page "The Russian Battlefield" for articles and first hand accounts on Russian use of the Shermans.

[Robert Mayer]

I think the reason for having a rarity-based point system _as an option_ is for those of us who want quick-battle flexibility, and historical fidelity. We want quick, random battles that will more or less resemble an "average" or at least "feasible" encounter on the WWII battlefield, rather than a battle balanced purely for game purposes but lacking any sort of historical equilibrium.

[Commissar]

You can also use the handicap to increase the points available for a quick battle, just like in CM1 if you don't like the historical values that BTS provides. It really is a flexible system the way it is now.