Armor rarity and cherry picking

[PeterX]

Scipio posted:

If the CM rarity was supposed to restrict cherry picking...then why are the cherrys always the cheapiest tanks?

Because BFC really didn't think through the Rarity System? The idea was to confront the player with difficult choices where, after a thoughtful cost/benefit analysis, a realistic yet diverse kampfgruppe would be assembled.

For the RS to work as advertised there should be moments when it's insane NOT to buy BT-5s instead of T34s. IOW, the prices should fluctuate wildly from battle to battle. A T34 platoon should cost -10% in battle 1 and +300% in battle 2. Maybe some models should disappear from the showroom floor all together from time to time.

Now, predictability reigns and the usual suspects crowd the top of the bargain bin. I've never encountered any Russian tanks other than a T34s or KVs in any PBEM QB. Computer force selection is an interesting alternative but not really feasible except for solitaire play until BFC implements blind setups.

[ April 25, 2003, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by PeterX:

For the RS to work as advertised there should be moments when it's insane NOT to buy BT-5s instead of T34s. IOW, the prices should fluctuate wildly from battle to battle. A T34 platoon should cost -10% in battle 1 and +300% in battle 2. Maybe some models should disappear from the showroom floor all together from time to time.

Variable rarity? Examples I just tried for a July 1941 battle, central region, see the results below. There is some fluctuation, but not on the scale you suggest.

The problem is that for the Soviet player, you almost force them to lose if you force them to use T26 or BT tanks, because these tanks are so hapless, unless you also insist that the German player brings no tanks or Stugs at all. Why would I or anyone start such a game if I play competitively? And if the answer is that it is not competitive, then why not use the scenario editor to knock yourself out? Why is nobody here arguing for forcing people to play unfit conscript pure infantry Romanians in 1942 during a snowstorm against Soviet vets with tanks? That also happened. That also makes for a crap PBEM game.

Here are the results.

T26 -5%

All other T26 and some BT models (including FT) 0%

KV1-1939 +10%

T34/KV1-1940 +20%

T34/BT/T26 0%

KV1 1939 - 50%

KV1 1940 - 125%

T26 1933 -5%

Other T26/BT makes - 0%

T34 1941 - 20%

T34 1940 - 40%

KV1 1940 - 40%

KV1 1939 - 100%

T26 1933 -5%

Other T26/BT makes - 0%/+5%

T34 1941 - 10%

T34 1940 - 40%

KV1 1940 - 30%

KV1 1939 - 100%

T26 1933 -10%

Other T26/BT makes - 0%/+5%

T34 1941 - 20%

T34 1940 - 30%

KV1 1940 - 5%

KV1 1939 - 5%

T26 1933 -10%

Other T26/BT makes - 0%/5%

T34 1941 - 0%

T34 1940 - 20%

KV1 1940 - 20%

KV1 1939 - 30%

T26 1933 - 0%

Other T26/BT makes - 0%/10%

T34 1941 - 10%

T34 1940 - 30%

KV1 1940 - 50%

KV1 1939 - 100%

[gorgias]

Jason look at i found looking for information about STUg.

"Instruction on fighting German tank T-VI.

Signed by Artillery Marshal Voronov

20 April 1943

In the recent battles Germans used their new heavy tank T-VI (see Pic.1) named Tiger (Elefant, Henschel).

Remark: all German heavies seem to be mixed up. However, on the pictures below scanned from the instruction accurately depict early Tiger.

These tanks cover action of medium tanks, at the same time, acting themselves under the cover of medium tanks. As a rule, they do not come forward. Very often tanks T-VI open fire from distances 1.5-2.5 km.

They retreat (reverse) from under the fire of our artillery.

Dimensions of T-VI.

Length - 6220 mm

Width - 3600 mm

Height - 2940 mm

Armament: one 88-mm anti-aircraft gun and two submachine guns 7.92-mm.

The front part of T-Vi is reliably penetrated by anti-armor shells of 45-mm guns model 1942 and 57-mm and 76-mm of all models from distances 100-700 m, by armor-piercing shells of 122-mm guns model 1931, 152-mm gun-howitzers model 1937 from 700-1000 m.

Sides, rear part and turret additionally to that are penetrated by subcaliber shells of 45-mm gun from 200-500 m, by armor-piercing shells of 57-mm AT guns, 76-mm and 85-mm antiaircraft guns from 1000 m.

Commanders of gun crews and gunners must carefully study and know vulnerable places of the tank, as well as which shell of which gun from what distance kills the tank.

Suspension, base of turret and gun are the most vulnerable places.

A hit of any shell from any gun in suspension stops the tank. The best is firing from angles 0-30 as in this case a few wheels are damaged and track is broken.

A hit in the base of turret blocks it and prevents rotation of the turret in the desired direction, The tank has to turn and expose to the fire its most vulnerable places.

A hit in the gun forces the tank to disengage from the battle.

Damaged tank that retained its armament and some fighting ability must be rendered useless by fire at its gun and turret.

Remark: it shows respect to Tiger as the instruction demands to shoot at Tiger until it has only wheels left.

A gun must pick up target among attacking tanks with the consideration of best shooting angles 0-30 , that is, the target must be to the side of the gun.

Guns of all types fire the standard shells only at suspension, turret's base and gun.

By subcaliber and armor-piercing shells the fire is effected from:

45-mm gun model 1937

suspension, turret's base and gun - by armor-piercing shells;

from 200 m at sides, rear and turret - by subcaliber shell;

45-mm gun model 1942

suspension, turret's base and gun - by armor-piercing shells;

from 500 m at sides and turret - by sun-caliber shell;

from 100 m at front part.

57-mm gun

from 600 m at sides, rear and turret - by armor-piercing shells;

from 500 m at front part by sub-caliber shells.

76-mm gun model 1942

at suspension, turret and gun;

from 700 m at sides, rear, turret - by sub-caliber shells;

from 100 m at front part.

76-mm AA gun

from 500 m at sides, rear and turret - by armor-piercing shells;

from 700 m at the front part by sub-caliber part.

85-mm AA gun

from 1000 m at sides, rear and turret.

122-mm model 1931

from 1000 m by armor-piercing shell at the front part. Rear, sides and turret can be hit from 1500 m.

152-mm gun-howitzer model 1937

from 1000 m by armor-piercing shell at sides, rear and turret. Front part can be hit from 500 m.

Commanders of gun crews and gunners must allow tank to close up, as close as possible, and open fire from distances securing reliable destruction."

What do u think?? Is it credible?? Really it´s more i waited. 45 mm guns killing tigers??!!! WOW!! as in CMBB!!!!!

[JasonC]

Why is everything a Tiger report, when the issue is supposed to be StuGs?

As for why they report 45mm penetrations, it is because it isn't about Tigers either. They have mushed together reports about all the new 88mm armor they faced, and probably more based on mis IDs.

Some of which are truly "T-VI" aka Tiger Is. About 130 of them, in fact.

Some of which are Elephants. 90 of them.

Some of which are Nashorns. Also 90 of them.

"I killed an 88mm very long barrelled German armored SP gun with just a 45mm ATG". True. Wasn't an Elephant, it was a Nashorn, but true.

"The long barrelled 88mm SP guns we faced are based on an early model of the Tiger chassis, and have 80mm armor even on their sides". Also true, different sector of the Kursk front, but true.

Oh, oh, I penetrated not a thin Marder type SP gun, but a thick fully armored one. That must have been one of those Elephants. "What'd you use?" 45mm sub caliber from close range. "Some Elephant. Probably a StuG."

Oh oh, but I killed a giant heavy turreted tank with 45mm from the side. The tank was much larger than a T-34, with a giant barrel. Not an SP gun, and not thin topped. "Right, we've got dead Panthers with 45mm holes in their sides right over here".

Kursk was a zoo. It was the first time any number of Russians saw, in any numbers, not only Tigers but also Panthers, Elephants, and Nashorns. It was probably the first many of them encountered 80mm front long barrel StuGs rather than 50mm front short ones.

If anything, the report suggests 80mm armor was penetrable by 76mm to 600-700m with APCR, because there isn't much else for that particular report to be about as some mistake. Would it take 700m and under and APCR ammo to penetrate a Panther, StuG, or Pz IV side? I don't think so.

[ April 27, 2003, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[PeterX]

Andres posted:

The problem is that for the Soviet player, you almost force them to lose if you force them to use T26 or BT tanks, because these tanks are so hapless, unless you also insist that the German player brings no tanks or Stugs at all.

I dunno. I wouldn't exchange two platoons of BT7s against one platoon of T34s. But make that 4 platoons of BT7s and you're getting me interested.

The principle of the rarity system was to encourage choices that foster the diversity found on the Eastern front. The cost differentials now encountered aren't wide enough to encourage the player to forsake the familiar standbys. I'd rather pay 30% more for a KV than save 20% on a BT7. In a perfect world there would be few situations that couldn't be rendered balanced with precise costing. Since that's a pipe dream perhaps a better solution would be to arbitrarily excise certain weapons on a random basis from the purchase screen.

Why would I or anyone start such a game if I play competitively? And if the answer is that it is not competitive, then why not use the scenario editor to knock yourself out?

Yeah scenarios are an option. But most ladder players want to play their Meeting Engangements with their Stugs and T34s and KVs. Over and over again. So what you end up with is a repeating force mix

played out in a fantasy, non-historic format.

[Andreas]

You are always going to have that problem with ladder players. Find somebody else to play if it really is such a problem. Wanting to play ladder games using less than optimal equipment is not going to happen. If you restrict particular choices, ladder players will just find a new standard of what is optimal, and you will see endless repetitions of that.

[Holien]

I used to ladder quite a bit, but really it is very boring.

I am playing the Septic tourney and we are using QB's. I now remember why I stopped playing QB's.

There are hundreds and hundreds of interesting scenarios. Some good some bad but all have their merits.

If you want diversity then play scenarios.

No matter what system you use QB's will become boring as players will home in on the best value for money kit and use it again and again.

H

[PeterX]

I used to ladder quite a bit, but really it is very boring.

The trouble is, I enjoy the competition on the ladders. But I'm tired of Stugs and, as for 'Meeting Engagements', the less said the better.

[Andreas]

ISTR that this situation was what brought about the concept of Byte Battles™ at Der Kessel.

This thread got me trying my hand at it for CMBB.

New design criteria for CMBB Byte Battles™?

[Holien]

Peter if you are on the T house ladder choose a scenario and we shall play it competively double blind.

I do this still as it is fun playing competively. That is why I get involved in ROW tourneys.

I am still on the T house and will report the loss if you beat me. If you don't and you think the scenario favoured me then I won't expect you to report it.

H

[Other Means]

i think this is a vote for a campain system in CMX2. if you can play a friend from 41 - 45 then the less than optimal armour will have to be used by each side at some time.

[Andreas]

I think it is a vote for a world without rain. Because without rain, the sun would always shine, and I would go out more, instead of playing CMBB.

Seriously though, at least as far as I am concerned, a campaign system is neither here nor there as a solution. I have no problems finding people to play against outside ladders (and I was never popular at school, so how hard can it be?), who are interested in fun more than anything else, and the Stug/T34 problem simply does not exist for me, and not for them, AFAICT.

[Thin Red Line]

Interesting topic.

Too bad i play exclusively scenarios because i find all those maths rather entertaining

[JasonC]

The base unit prices are meant to measure unit effectiveness at the individual CM fight scale. They aren't meant for scenarios because they are irrelevant in scenarios.

But even at premiums to the base prices, as long as they are modest ones (50 or less e.g.), players looking for advantage will always select more powerful AT guns and especially thicker armor. The prices do not reflect the level of edge these things give. Particularly the top of the quality distribution at any given moment in time.

A long gun, 80mm front StuG costs no more than a 50L60 Pz III or a T-34/76 in base price terms. In the game, it is front armor invunerable to most Russian guns and its gun kills essentially any Russian AFV at any practical QB range.

If the StuG were penetrated by Russian 76mm to 500m from the front (as CMBB penetration numbers, as opposed to actual penetration performance, suggest), then its price might be the right order of magnitude, anyway. But for its actual performance it is drastically underpriced even at 20-40 rarity. This is a sign its base price is off by 50% or more, or it is overmodeled, or both.

The CM pricing formula seems to weigh turrets, MGs and MG ammo, maximum speed, and depth of HE load heavily, compared to gun quality and especially front-only armor protection. Players put a much higher value on front armor thickness, and less but still more than CM prices on maximum armor penetration of the main gun.

Consider German base prices in 1942. Compared to a short StuG with 50mm front, a killer gun costs only 9 points. 80mm thick armor costs 13. A turret and 2 MGs (the short III J) costs 10. A 50L60 compared to a 50L42 costs 9, when it is a much smaller improvement than the killer long 75. A 70mm front vs. 50mm costs only 7.

With the Pz IVs, the turret and MGs cost a huge 29 more without thick front armor or a long gun. The turreted long gun costs 18. Thicker hull only, with the turret still vunerable, costs 13.

The prices paid by Panzer IVs for improvements compared to StuGs are enourmous. Nobody buys them. A thin turret front is in practice a much more glaring weakness than lack of a turret or lack of MGs. Yet you pay 38 more points in base price for the IVG than for a thick StuG.

Or look at 1941 Russians. The best model KV with L42 gun and 100mm front armor costs only 6 points more than the weak turret 1941 model T-34. The shorter gun KV is actually 1 pt cheaper. The T-34 apparently pays as much for its higher speed and perhaps ammo supply than the KV pays for armor that is invunerable to practically every German AT weapon on the time.

Then the rarity system simply does not correct the problems created by base prices. Because you can get the best 25% of the force for 5-10 rarity, and need pay only 20-30 for the best 5% of the fleet actually available at a given time, there is no point in skipping the underpriced advantage of nearly the thickest armor of the era.

It seems to me armor ought to be weighted about twice as high in the relative costs as it seems to be, and gun quality as much as turret, MG, and ammo load issues combined. Who pays more for IVFs to get a turret and MGs, instead of to upgrade gun or armor? The best StuGs cost less than the low end IVs.

And on the rarity side, the rarity figures should reflect where vehicles stand in a ranking of quality available at that time. The middle of the quality distribution should be low rarity. Items at the bottom end should only see increased rarity if their absolute numbers are in 3 digits. The top third of the quality distribution should pay at least moderate rarity, meaning around 30 not 5-10. The top 1/10 to 1/20 of the vehicle distribution should pay substantial rarity, 50-100 or more.

In the meantime, the only QB solution I see is stipulated bans on invunerable vehicles. Meaning KVs in 1941, Tigers and StuGs 42-43. The Germans can pay up for IVGs if they want 80mm hull fronts and a killer gun, and still have a turret weakness. The Russians can pay for T-34s with improved turrets in 1941, and still be penetrable by the right weapon at close enough range.

Will that make Germans take Pz38s or Russians take BTs sometimes? Probably not. But it is still better than the present gamey cherry picking mess, with the outcome of the armor war largely decided by the date chosen for the battle.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by JasonC:

As for why they report 45mm penetrations, it is because it isn't about Tigers either. They have mushed together reports about all the new 88mm armor they faced, and probably more based on mis IDs.

Some of which are truly "T-VI" aka Tiger Is. About 130 of them, in fact.

Some of which are Elephants. 90 of them.

Some of which are Nashorns. Also 90 of them.

Jason care to provide a refrence for your assertion the Instruction on fighting German tank T-VI. Included Elephants, Nashorns, mis ids etc.

The T-VI Instruction is dated April 20th 1943.

Their were no Elephants etc, available on the Eastren Front till June 1943.

The T-VI reports penetrations of 45mm etc, because it is calculated penetration performance based on ARTKOM/De Marre penetration formula.

The actual live fire tests on the Tiger E were not even conducted until 5 days after, the T-VI instructions were released, and the actual LF results do not even resemble the T-VI penetration estimates performance stated in the T-VI instructions.

If your interested in how the formula worked I sugest you obtain:

Krogfus Miles. De Marre and ARTKOM AFV News May - August 2003, Volume 38, No.2

Regards, John Waters

[ May 02, 2003, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Talenn]

JasonC said:

"If the StuG were penetrated by Russian 76mm to 500m from the front (as CMBB penetration numbers, as opposed to actual penetration performance, suggest), then its price might be the right order of magnitude, anyway. But for its actual performance it is drastically underpriced even at 20-40 rarity. This is a sign its base price is off by 50% or more, or it is overmodeled, or both."

I've made this same arguement time and time again. I made it when the game was first out and at various other points in the game's history. Each time, I've been shouted down.

Too me, this is a GLARINGLY obvious problem. Its not that people are buying StuGs when on the defense because they are cost-effective, its that they are buying them REGARDLESS of the mission. That should be a red flag IMO. But, no...it must be OK because BTS made it that way. <sigh>

Anyways, I hope they fix their point cost weighting formula to be more in line with what you've posted because the current formula does not seem to accurately reflect some vehicles performances IN GAME (where it matters).

Talenn

[Apache]

I must admit I often wish I had the time etc to fully research the most likely components for forces. I do prefer to play as close to historical as possible but, whilst my knowledge now is A LOT better than when I first picked up CMBO a couple of years ago (thanks in no small part to a number of forum members), I still lack the almost encyclopaedic knowledge that some posess that will allow spot-on selection (or as near as damn it) every time. I'm sure I must end up with some combos that a historian would raise an eyebrow to. The desire for accuracy (and as a rule I suspect unbalanced forces) is a personal choice but there are clearly quite a few who are interested in that side. I tend to set myeslf %age limiters when selecting combined arms forces and try to base them loosley around my limited knowledge of infantry or pz bns. Therefore if taking a med tank coy I tend to take perhaps 4 late model IIIs and 8 early (maybe some 4s). Of course even this is not perhaps correct given that such mixes did not perhaps occur at this level. That said I do prefer not doing a battle with 12 late IVs. I am even trying to devise a 10 sided die based selector based on the relative rarity of vehilce types within both Heer and SS (e.g. if Stug F/8s were roughly only 30% of Stug make up for that unit type in that year/month, rolling 1-3 will get you Stug F/8s, otherwise its IIIs or whatever, again governed by %ages.). Not ideal perhaps and there will always be flaws but at least it prvents me thinking Stugs, right, F8s.

I often wonder whether BTS could include some form of 'force builder' as an enhancement to the QB generator where you could perhaps refine some of the parameters or even choose pre-selected but variable forces (e.g. Pz Bn, well equipped, reasonably equipped, poorly equipped) for assault, attack and defence missions. There could be a smattering of such selections covering perhaps recon, pz, ss, infantry, mountain etc and they could be at say either company and bn level. Could the editor do this I wonder, but then you're back to having the time and knowledge that BTS and others seem to have at their fingertips.

[ May 03, 2003, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Apache ]