Tigers? Bah...Panthers? Dont need 'em...We have the StuGIIIF!

[Talenn]

The Bard:

Thanx for the compliment. When posting on forums, its important to realize the people cant see tone and voice inflection. That leads to people taking things the wrong way on occasion and eventually flame wars. I'm glad this discussion never degenerated down that path.

Steve:

Fair enough. I honestly didnt expect to come here and post about this and have it magically changed in the the upcoming patch. I'm realistic enough to know that changes like this have to come gradually and after a semi-large consensus.

I feel I accomplished my goals of 1) gaining some insight into the vehicles that can 'counter' the StuG and 2) raising the awareness so that at the very least, people will take notice if the StuGs DO seem to perform a bit too well for their cost.

FWIW, I'll stick to playing the Russians. I'm not going to let a little thing like unkillable enemy AFVs stop me. I've played the Russians in every game I've had including numerous Cold War and modern sim. Believe me, I'm used to not being able to frontally effect enemy MBTs (Abrams M1A1/A2 vs T72 anyone?). One thing I WAS used to counting on though, was numerical superiority in the face of enemy qualitative superiority. I think that is why the StuG's cost sent up a red flag for me...with their cost, its not really possible to outnumber them...hence my original post.

Anyways, back to the game. For the moment, I'm sticking with total random (including AI picked forces), so its not really an issue. I just was getting a bit tired already of seeing StuGs in every player's OOBs.

Thanx again for the input and rationale behind it all.

Talenn

[Battlefront.com]

Talenn,

m

I feel I accomplished my goals of 1) gaining some insight into the vehicles that can 'counter' the StuG and 2) raising the awareness so that at the very least, people will take notice if the StuGs DO seem to perform a bit too well for their cost.

As I said, I don't disagree that in some circumstances some unit of some sort will peform "a bit too well for their cost". For example, just for fun I put a Conscript Sturmtiger up against a full battalion of Green/Regular Soviet infantry. This was on a favorable map to the Germans. The ST wiped out 220 men and left the others in total disarray. So much so that the AI surrendered even though it had posession of the flags

One vehicle did this and the Soviets had no weapon capable of even tickling the bad beast! And this was with Rarity on and 200% penalty assessed. Now I know this isn't a realistic matchup, but it does clearly demonstrate that in some circumstances one unit can totally overwhelm the other side on a point for point basis.

Like one of the CD's scenarios where I used a single King Tiger to bottle up 10 T-34/85s, taking out 7 before my AP ran out. In that scenario the KT was untouchable for the most part and point for point it came out VERY well. But is this a problem or just an accurate modeling of reality? I say the latter.

One thing I WAS used to counting on though, was numerical superiority in the face of enemy qualitative superiority.

Remember, the traditional benefit of the Soviet's superior numbers is at the Operational level, *not* the tactical level. For the most part Soviet armor didn't meet up with any German armor of any sort because, just like Shermans and Cromwells on the Western Front. What is the point of having a superior weapons system, cheap or expensive, if they aren't likely to be where you need them to be? That is a very big point to keep in mind.

I think that is why the StuG's cost sent up a red flag for me...with their cost, its not really possible to outnumber them...hence my original post.

Sure, it is entirely possible to outnumber. Do a quick test and you can see this for sure.

I did a Meeting Engagement with casualty killoffs. Each side had 1400 points to spend on anything it wanted. Here is what I was able to purchase:

Germans:

2xRifle Company

3xStuG F (late)

Soviet:

1xMot Battalion

11xT-34/76 1943 (early)

That is 3:2 advantage for Soviet infantry formations (actual advantages vary depending on what you look at) and a nearly 4:1 advantage in armor. And this is for a Meeting Engagement where both sides are supposedly equal, which means a Soviet Attack or Assault scenario is even more opsided numbers wise.

Anyways, back to the game. For the moment, I'm sticking with total random (including AI picked forces), so its not really an issue. I just was getting a bit tired already of seeing StuGs in every player's OOBs.

The biggest things you want to keep Random are the Division Type. The Germans are more likely to get Infantry than anything else, which means their chances of armor of any sort will be small.

Steve

[Chad Harrison]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Germans:

2xRifle Company

3xStuG F (late)

Soviet:

1xMot Battalion

11xT-34/76 1943 (early)

That is 3:2 advantage for Soviet infantry formations (actual advantages vary depending on what you look at) and a nearly 4:1 advantage in armor. And this is for a Meeting Engagement where both sides are supposedly equal, which means a Soviet Attack or Assault scenario is even more opsided numbers wise.

I am finding this to be the case very often. If you choose to play as the germans, you have chosen to be outnumbered by both tanks and infantry every time! Even in an assault, where you are assaulting as the germans, the russian defenders will most likely outnumber your men and out tank your men! I have not played for long enough to really get a feeling for how this works out, but I do now in a lot of the scenarios, the germans find themselves attacking against 2:1 or even 3:1 odds! Those are the scenarios that I no longer find fun, and they are more of an annoyance.

Chad

[Talenn]

Steve:

Not to dispute your 'buy' example, but could you show me how you got those forces? I've never been able to field anything resembling what you have there for the Soviets at 1400 points. Admittedly I've only played a handful of QBs online, but I'd like to see if that is a contrived force based on optimum conditions or whether the Soviets are commonly able to enjoy that type of numerical advantage.

I tried it in a QB Meeting Engagement (didnt see a 1400 setting, just 1250 and 1500). I got 'Mechanized' and couldnt field anything near like the number of the troops you indicated. A BN of troops and then 3xT34s of the most common type.

If you are going with a Conscript force, it might be possible, but there you are looking at those 3 StuGs handing all 11 T34's their @$$ without issue. The attacking infantry will be equally (and easily) dealt with by 2 companies of German Infantry. IMO, 3-2 is not good odds when your quality is that poor, but again, YMMV.

Anyways, I'm just trying to see how you can gain numerical superiority if the vehicles are the same cost (or the StuGs are cheaper). Sure, the point variance between German 'armor' buys and Soviet 'armor' buys can account for it, but then you are giving up other arms or going with lower quality troops.

The point I was trying to make about outnumbering was from a game balance PoV, not Operational vs Tactical. If the other side has better quality equipment or troops, you should expect to be able to have more than them without further sacrificing troop quality. In other words, you are already at a disadvantage with T34s vs StuGs all things equal (despite the StuGs equal or lower price tag). If I lower my crew quality to get more T34s, I havent altered the equation in my favor (unless the formula for determining cost based on troop quality is off, but... ).

Thanx again,

Talenn

[Battlefront.com]

Talenn,

Not to dispute your 'buy' example, but could you show me how you got those forces?

Er... dunno exactly since I just did it quickly

I tried it in a QB Meeting Engagement (didnt see a 1400 setting, just 1250 and 1500).

The Casualty feature was on so it was 1000 pts + 400 for casualties.

I got 'Mechanized' and couldnt field anything near like the number of the troops you indicated. A BN of troops and then 3xT34s of the most common type.

It all depends on what pops up for Rarity, the month tried, etc. I just tried February and found that I could get 2 companies vs. 3, 6 StuG Gs (lucky rarity reduction!) vs. 9 T-34s.

Anyways, I'm just trying to see how you can gain numerical superiority if the vehicles are the same cost (or the StuGs are cheaper). Sure, the point variance between German 'armor' buys and Soviet 'armor' buys can account for it, but then you are giving up other arms or going with lower quality troops.

Which is again... realistic. One of the ways the Soviets obtained numerical superiority was through undertraining.

The point I was trying to make about outnumbering was from a game balance PoV, not Operational vs Tactical. If the other side has better quality equipment or troops, you should expect to be able to have more than them without further sacrificing troop quality.

Why? War is not fair and it would be totally unrealistic for us to make the game behave this way. What you are basically talking about here is not historical reality, or even a point system. What you are talking about is more or less a system that automatically gives the Soviets more stuff regardless of anything. There are settings that allow this (boosting the Handicap for the Soviets will do it), but inherently this is a biased system and that is why it isn't the default.

In other words, you are already at a disadvantage with T34s vs StuGs all things equal (despite the StuGs equal or lower price tag).

Here we go again ... define "disadvantage"? It all depends on the circumstances. It is a "disadvantage" for the Soviets to have 14xT-34/85s going up against a single Crack King Tiger with terrain favoring the Germans. The Sovs have superior numbers for sure, and spent far more points, but they are likely to lose.

What more can we do to balance such a situation? Make the King Tiger cost 4000 points or the 14xT-34s cost 500 points? What if the Germans don't have a King Tiger, or it gets bogged down behind a hill before entering into battle? How fair would that be if the Soviets had 14 El Cheapo, but very powerful tanks, going up against a few Schrecks and masses of HE vulnerable infantry?

Again, I reffer you back to my Sturmtiger exmaple in my previous post. The Germans afforded ONE conscript vehicle and defeated a Green/Regular *battalion* of infantry with *four shots*. How is that "balanced"? How could we make it balanced?

Saying that something is "unbalanced" presumes that there is such a thing as "balance" that can be obtained. And that gets back to my first post where I stated that it is so very easy for someone to put on blinders and hone in on one aspect and say "ah-ha! I think I have found a problem here". But it is just so much more complicated than that. The determination of balance is in the eye of the beholder and the EXACT circumstances of the battle in question.

StuGs are not Godlike vehicles. They have their weaknesses. Learn how to counter them. They can be countered. At the very least it is not a foregone conclusion that if you are the Soviets and you see one on the battlefield that you are dead meat.

If I lower my crew quality to get more T34s, I havent altered the equation in my favor (unless the formula for determining cost based on troop quality is off, but... ).

Qunatity vs. Quality is a realistic tradeoff in the real world, and it is in CM. I think it is totally unrealistic to think "Yeah, I can get 5:1 odds with same troop quality just because my equivalent vehicles aren't as good". That isn't realistic and realism is what CM is about.

I guess my only advice here is to either look at the StuGs as a realistic challenge you need to overcome or avoid. In the real war the Soviets were often able to do the latter because of their superior numbers. If all 8,000 StuGs were deployed at once and on the Eastern Front alone thee Soviets could still be reasonably assured that they could pick points to attack where the StuGs weren't or to suck up the losses and overwhelm them with repeated attacks.

And that is the main lesson the Germans learned on the Eastern Front... when your forces are spread paper thin, and your enemy can pick and choose where he wants to attack, you are in for a very rough ride Look at Bagration. The Germans had a couple hundred various assaultguns defending against THOUSANDS of Soviet AFVs along a couple hundred KM front. That is where superior numbers comes into play.

Steve

[a smiley or two added so I won't come off as frustrated or aggitated, since neither are the case ]

[ October 09, 2002, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Talenn]

Steve:

Ok, not to drag this out any further, but I knew my point about lowering quality was going to be attack because I phrased it poorly.

In the example, the Russians can gain more T34s by lowering the troop quality which you mention is 'realistic'. Agreed. BUT it still doesnt alter the equation. If I can afford, say 4 T34s to match my opponent's 3 StuGs and I lower my quality to Conscript so I can outnumber him with 8 to 3, whats stopping my opponent from lowering his quality and getting 6 StuGs? Thats what I meant by not altering the equation...the lowering of quality can be done by both sides, so its not a 'valid' issue in balancing IMO.

Also, FWIW, at this point, the main issue is lost. I was never trying to state that the StuG is unbeatable, just potentially 'overly-efficient' for its cost. All the 'real world' examples in the world about how StuGs werent present here and there and if they were, the Russians would have had to adapt etc, are, in the end, not relevant to an individual game balance issue IMO. Thats what the point value is for...to translate vehicle effectiveness into a generic number that allows two players to sit down and play with a reasonable chance of a win being pulled out based on skill. IMO 'Point value' serves no other 'historic' function, but is there to provide a basis for force balance.

Again, whether war is 'fair' or not is also not relevant here IMO. Of course war isnt fair. But to have an effective game, it has to be 'fair' or else you dont really have much of a game. As an extreme example, if one side is winning 90% of the time because 'fairness' doesnt factor in, in short order no one will be playing the game because its not worth spending the time on foregone conclusions. I'm certainly not saying that this is the case, but trying to demonstrate that 'fair' has to factor into the equation. By way of another example, if T34s were lowered to 30 points each, the game would certainly falter because no one would want to be the Germans. In that example, I'm sure people could find historic examples out the wazoo of hopelessly outnumbered Germans being overrun by hordes of T34s, but who the heck wants to game THAT?

Anyways, the point on 'balance' is well taken and I understand its a Holy Grail that can never be fully attained. A note I remember from long ago in a fantasy minitatures system sums it up fairly well: Paraphrased, it was something like 'How can any point value be totally accurate when dealing with such divergent capabilities? If we rate a 'Goblin' at 3 points, how much should a Dragon who cant be hurt by the Goblin cost? 300? 3000? It is impossible to rate these two in the same system accurately because it doesnt matter how many Goblins are present, they will eventually lose...but we have to do it anyways'. I think that about say it all, and I can accept that.

Anyways, thanx for the discussion. We have strayed farther and farther from the original, so at this point, I'm content to leave it be and see what develops. I intend to keep a close eye on Tournaments and on my own QBs with people to see force mixes and vehicle choices. If certain vehicles are widely thought to be 'no brainer' purchases, I'll return here to lobby for an increase based on 'field experience' .

Talenn

[Andrew H.]

I'm not going to change my sig to "Play Conscript Troops" (yet ; I do have my standards), but people should get over the idea that low quality troops (even conscripts) are some sort if impossible thing to play. They're not just in the game for historical purposes, and sometimes they are the type of troops that you *should* choose.

Specifically, in June '42, 11 conscript T-34s should handily wax 3 regular StuGs on a normal QB map (i.e., not tremendously long). Here's what you do:

(1) Group your T-34s into two groups, one with 6 tanks and one with 5 tanks.

(2) Wait until your units have spotted the enemy StuGs.

(3) Move the six tank group to a flanking position (let's say the right flank), and move the five tank unit to a position in front of, but slightly to the left (your left) of the StuGs. (You can probably do this background maneuvering out of LOS of the StuGs).

(4) Give the flanking t-34s a "fast move" order straight down the map, so that they will drive by the StuGs on the flank. The move should terminate slightly behind the StuGs. The flanking T-34s should pass by the StuGs at a range of about 200 meters, although this distance is not critical, nor is LOS to all of the StuGs critical.

(5) At about the same time as you send the flanking t-34s out, send out the frontal T-34s. You should probably give them a "hunt" command, and you should try to time it so that they have LOS to the StuGs about the same time as the flanking T-34s.

The idea, of course, is that the StuG will be flanked whether they turn to face the flanking T-34s or stay and face the frontal T-34s. This tends to work quite well, even if the units aren't too coordinated - it helps that the flanking T-34s tend to only have LOS to one StuG, which gives them good 6-1 odds.

As an added bonus, the 12 MGs on the flanking T-34s will typically find lots of infantry in the open to shoot up with MGs; this will probably completely disrupt the German assault, especially if the T-34s park back there.

The biggest disadvantage that conscript tanks have is that non-penetrating hits cause them to bail. I once lost a conscript KV-2 when platoon fire from a 38(t) platoon caused the crew to panic and bail, even though the wimpy 37mm gun didn't come close to penetrating. (The KV-2 was probably hit 20 times in the course of a minute, though). But this disadvantage doesn't hurt you when you're fighting a StuG in '42 - *any* hit will be a penetrating hit anyway.

There are other disadvantages, of course - there is a longer delay when you want to change orders, and the ROF and gun accuracy are reduced - but not so much that they can't hit a tank at 200 meters. And while you'll lose some tanks because they are conscripts, you should end up with several tanks to the German's 0 tanks, which is a great advantage, especially when the tanks have 2 MGs and a decent HE shell.

[Battlefront.com]

Andrew has hit on the key weakness of the StuG, or any other non-turreted vehicle. If you can get it from two sides it is basically forced to either risk getting it in the flank or withdrawing ASAP. A turreted vehicle has a better chance of dealing with such a situation. And if the StuG's targets are moving and moving fast, it will have a hard time tracking them since the gun has limited L/R traverse. That means repositing the vehicle, which can also mean more exposed flank.

Sure, going up against a well positioned, hull down killer like a StuG sucks... but it can be done.

Steve

[Talenn]

Andrew Hedges:

Actually, I enjoyed Green troops in CMBO very much. They felt more 'right' than the supermen of Regular+. I also felt that many of the divisions present on the Western front qualified as Green.

A few points though:

1) Actually doing the points out, 3 Regular StuGIIIG(mid) costs about the same as 5 Conscript T34(early) in Spring of 43. Those are some VERY long odds for the T34s... 11 T34s vs 3 StuGs is actually more than 2 to 1 in favor of the Russians pointwise. Thats not likely to happen in many QBs...

2) Conscripts not only bail when hit, but they also spend a lot of time 'reversing' and dancing around (realistic, but not effective) rather than shooting.

3) For every tactic you can devise like that, I'm sure someone else could come in here and say 'yeah, well if I was playing the StuGs I could beat 11 T34s by doing x,y,z,'. At that point its a tactics matchup, but if I have to have 2 to 1 in points in the field to make it come down to tactics, its a problem.

4) In order to utilize the tactic you describe, you DO have to somewhat significantly outnumber your opponent. Thats tough to do when they cost the same or less.

5) Nonetheless, point taken and it is something that I'm trying to do more frequently. The first few online games I played, I was completely unprepared for the notion that the StuG was frontally immune to the 76.2 cannon.

Anyways, the points have been made. StuGs have weaknesses and they can be exploited. I've never doubted that. Time will still have to tell whether they will become 'overused' in QBs like certain vehicles in CMBO. My money is still on 'yes', but I certainly could be (and hope I am) wrong.

Talenn

[Redwolf]

In addition to that difficult ground is a very serious problem for 80mm-armored vehicles with Pz III chassis.

If you play a realistic mix of ground conditions over a bunch of games then the better armored StuG IIIs will go on your nerves very fast, respectivly nowhere.

[Andrew H.]

Talenn: Yes, regular troops are gamey in CMBO.

You're right that when you purchase armor has an effect on how much it costs, although I didn't come up with the same prices you had.

Using standard rarity, in a Sept. '42 1500 point CA ME, the Sov. player can purchase 8 conscript T-34s; the German can only buy 2 StuG III F/8s. To some extent this is a cost function: T-34s are not rare in this time period; a command/ind. T-34 costs 88 pts, and a non-command T-34 costs 69 points. That makes a T-34 platoon cost 226 pts. Ind/hq StuGs cost 155 pts; the Germans don't have enough points to buy a whole battery.

Also, the Allies have more armor points to spend than the Germans - the Germans can only spend 360 points on armor in a 1500 pt CA ME; the soviets have something like 659 pts. Thats where the 8 to 2 comes in.

Things aren't much better for the Germans in March '43. They can now buy a battery of StuG Gs (not rare) for 300 pts; b/c of the 360 pt limit, they can't buy any more, though.

T-34s have a -5% rarity in 3/43; this allows the allied player to buy three platoons (@213 per platoon). Sov odds are now 9-3, which is not as good as 11-3, but it's still pretty good.

Also, while I'm sure that there is a counter to the flanking move I described in my previous post - AT guns, perhaps - it remains a *very serious* threat to the StuGs, and imposes something like parity with the T-34s, if not still slightly favorable to the T-34s. At the least, it means that the StuGs can't roam the battlefield with impunity.

There are two other points that affect the value of the T-34 vs. StuG in a meaningful way. The first is the MG issue. Because MGs are much more effective now, having them on tanks is worth quite a bit, and the StuGs' absence of MGs is very significant; the two MGs on the T-34 will just frustrate any attempt by infantry to cross open ground in an area covered by the T-34s, and when there are 9 T-34s roaming around, there will be a lot of unhappy infantry.

The second issue is, as redwolf pointed out, ground pressure. StuGs have high ground pressure (14.7 psi) vs. the T-34s low ground pressure (10.7 psi). This means that when the ground conditions are damp (which is, I think, the most common ground condition in the games I've played), I am concerned at moving the StuGs at a rate faster than Move on any terrain but open or roads (I don't even like to Hunt in wheatfields or brush in damp), but I'm not concerned at all about moving T-34s at the Fast rate through pretty much all terrain. (I feel like you have to be more cautious with the StuG because an immobilized StuG is really useless, and easy to flank; also, there are only 3 of them).

[Priest]

Talenn,

Here is another thing for your points assessment. You stated that there are counter moves to flanking manuevers and you are correct. The problem is that most of those counters involve using some form of weapon system to cover the flank trying to be taken advantage of. This means putting infantry, ATGs, armour, or all three on the flank of every Stug formation. That in and of itself would cost you points that would then raise the overall points you are dedicating to your anti armour contingent.

Fionn said it best in one of his AARs in CMBO. To have a complete formation you need to have a recce element, an artillery element, an armour element (anti), an assault element, and a reserve element. Now the assualt element obviously changes to MLR element in a defensive formation blah blah. (BTW Fionn if you read this I hope I am displaying your ideas correctly please correct me if I am not.)

Even small games (400 pts) you are probably going to buy a sharpshooter or two, thus your recce element. Size of each element is not important but most folks in one way or another have even fuzzy breakdowns such as the one displayed above.

Now if you take your example of counter against the Flank Attack then you take resources (units) away from the other elements of your formation. So those two infantry platoons with AT teams you have sitting on either flank might prove to be very handy when two heavily supported infantry companies hit your MLR (your MLR element). Or maybe if you had those platoons out in forward postions the spotters now reigning down accurate steel death would not have gotten such good LOS. Or maybe the tactical flexibility of being able to shift those platoons to trouble spots would be comforting. You see everything you do has a cost.

So why the Stug does have a period where it is superior you are thinking purely in direct confrontation terms. I do not even have to kill a Stug to make it a non-factor. If you approach its flank, most smart players are going to have to fall back with that unit, thus freeing you assault units to advance or manuever. Also if you have a STUG you are going to be more apt to support that STUGs flanks over a turreted tank and thus if I pressure your flanks with my armour element I may force you to commit your reserves in which case I weaken you response to assault element. And it goes on and on.

So is a T-34 going to win at 1000m versus a Stug, well probably not. And that is realistic, but that situation will normally only arise on a test gunnery field or something. Using smoke, cover, and tactics you can overcome that distance and with the advantages of the T-34 can then move to flank the Stug.

I will end with analogy, no one expect to be able to shoot with a sword or slice something with a rifle. No one should expect the t-34 to be a great standoff weapon after a certain point in the war, especially against a very good stand off weapon in the Stug. That is why tactics have evolved past the oh so wonderous Revolutionary War days.

Great discussion, hope I made sense, just about to leave work and a bit rushed.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Talenn,

If I can afford, say 4 T34s to match my opponent's 3 StuGs and I lower my quality to Conscript so I can outnumber him with 8 to 3, whats stopping my opponent from lowering his quality and getting 6 StuGs?

Er... the fact that he doesn't know you took 8 conscript T-34s Oh, and the fact that neither side knows what the other is selecting is another one! If you play Random it might be that the German player gets saddled with an Infantry formation and can't get even one StuG. So there you are with 8 mobile pillboxes with big boombooms and MGs!

The less options one plays around with, the more certain the unit choices. The more options, the more variety. The more variety, the less chance of a reoccuring situation (balanced or imbalanced).

Thats what I meant by not altering the equation...the lowering of quality can be done by both sides, so its not a 'valid' issue in balancing IMO.

Using this logic there can never be balance because there is always some setting or player choice that can be made to equalize things. But how many games have you seen played in CMBO where the German player opted for Conscript armor? Some things are more valid in theory than in practice.

Also, FWIW, at this point, the main issue is lost. I was never trying to state that the StuG is unbeatable, just potentially 'overly-efficient' for its cost. All the 'real world' examples in the world about how StuGs werent present here and there and if they were, the Russians would have had to adapt etc, are, in the end, not relevant to an individual game balance issue IMO. Thats what the point value is for...to translate vehicle effectiveness into a generic number that allows two players to sit down and play with a reasonable chance of a win being pulled out based on skill.

No, that is not the goal of the point system because this is totally impossible to acheive. Reffer back to my point about the couple billion different situational possibilities The purpose of a point system is to rate each and every unit's effectiveness (value) based on an unbiased and unassuming set of stanards. This gives the unit an overall score which can be (roughly) equated to other units. The employment realities and variables are outside of the control of any system and therefore there can be no system to account for them. That means a StuG might appear to be a bargin in one scenario, a total waste of resources in another (say, wooded with fog!).

But to have an effective game, it has to be 'fair' or else you dont really have much of a game. As an extreme example, if one side is winning 90% of the time because 'fairness' doesnt factor in, in short order no one will be playing the game because its not worth spending the time on foregone conclusions. I'm certainly not saying that this is the case, but trying to demonstrate that 'fair' has to factor into the equation.

If CMBB were far more narrowly focused, this could be done to some extent (and with great personal bias injected). But for CMBB? It is impossible to do for such a game because there are just too many variables. What is fair one time is totally unfair the next. What is impossible for one player is a piece of cake for another. A few weeks ago some people were bitching about one or the other scenarios from the Demo being either too easy or too hard. Even 2 year veterans of CMBO and Ladder Tournies couldn't agree. That is a clear indication that "fair" and "balance" is as much up to luck as it is to the individual players.

By way of another example, if T34s were lowered to 30 points each, the game would certainly falter because no one would want to be the Germans. In that example, I'm sure people could find historic examples out the wazoo of hopelessly outnumbered Germans being overrun by hordes of T34s, but who the heck wants to game THAT?

Which is a perfect example of why we do not play loose and fast with the points. We stick to the equations and use historical evidence as the final arbitrator. And not silly one off battle situations, but general frontwide accounts.

Anyways, the point on 'balance' is well taken and I understand its a Holy Grail that can never be fully attained. A note I remember from long ago in a fantasy minitatures system sums it up fairly well: Paraphrased, it was something like 'How can any point value be totally accurate when dealing with such divergent capabilities? If we rate a 'Goblin' at 3 points, how much should a Dragon who cant be hurt by the Goblin cost? 300? 3000? It is impossible to rate these two in the same system accurately because it doesnt matter how many Goblins are present, they will eventually lose...but we have to do it anyways'. I think that about say it all, and I can accept that.

Now you are getting it In that Sturmtiger battle I mentioned I won. But what if it had been rainy and my ST got bogged down behind some trees. Would it have been worth 1400 points? (that was one price I saw for thee bugger!)

Anyways, thanx for the discussion. We have strayed farther and farther from the original, so at this point, I'm content to leave it be and see what develops. I intend to keep a close eye on Tournaments and on my own QBs with people to see force mixes and vehicle choices. If certain vehicles are widely thought to be 'no brainer' purchases, I'll return here to lobby for an increase based on 'field experience'

Hehe... well, keep in mind we do not pay much attention to the results of Tournies too much. These guys warp, bend, and even break the game in order to get ahead. It is therefore inherently a bad batch of data to look at to determine anything but what gamey abuses are possibly out there. The tournies, for example, constnatly boasted use of Volksgrenadier SMG guys. Same for QBs. Did we change the price? Nope, we changed the game Gamey crap tends to be a combo of things, points being not generally one of the more important factors.

Steve

[Talenn]

Again, good points one and all. I was aware of most of this stuff before, but it never hurts to get a more in-depth analysis. There is always something new to pick out of it.

I think one thing that aggravates the situation is that the players know the 'mission' before they pick in a QB. That lets them custom tailor their force and makes it harder to 'catch' them buying for the wrong occasion. From what I've gathered above (and from my personal knowledge), the StuG obviously isnt optimized for the attack. But that just means that people wont BUY them for an attack.

An interesting option to have (and this is just thinking out loud), would be to have both players pick forces for the agreed upon point value. Then, if the battle is an attack (assuming you went with Random battle type), one side's forces are 'inflated' by the correct percentage, but the force mix remains more or less intact.

If something like that could be implemented, 'min-maxers' might think twice about overloading on situation specific AFVs (ie StuGs! ) because they might find that they have a vehicle totally unsuited for the mission.

I'm not sure how viable that is for CMBB (although I would imagine that a similar mechanism to the casualty removal could be used) but it would make a nifty feature for the engine rewrite at the very least!

Thoughts?

Talenn

[Tarquelne]

Perhaps playing variable rarity would help there.

Yes! What's that saying?... Sometimes you get the StuG, sometimes the StuG gets you.

BTW:

An informal rule I want to try for VR QBs is that each side is only allowed to buy AFVs being offered at a "discount", maybe a sizable one.

A QB set-up I used in CMBO that was fun, and should work even better in CMBB, is to allow only one side a few AFVs. If the attacker has the AFVs make the QB shorter, if it's the defender make the QB longer.

[xerxes]

I've been practicing my attacking tactics against the ai. Having read some stuff about the uberstugs I decided what the heck, let's try them. I bought 2 companies of german infantry, 2 stugs, 3 guns, and a couple of 18mm FOs. Good balanced force. I setup my stugs with a keyhole to one stand of woods, no LOS to the russki's anywhere else. I try to be careful with my armor.

The game starts, boom, boom, stug1 reports his gun is KOed and he routs. Hmmm. My 1918 era field guns zero in on the "oh so lucky ai" AT gun and wack it. Advancing with infantry I discover some soviet light armor and a T-34. Hehe, no problem I think. I'll just move my uberstug into a keyhole on the T-34, take it out and then repeat for the light soviet afvs.

Stug moves about 15 meters, bog, bog. Crum. Next turn, bog, bog, immobilize. No LOS to anything!

My uberstugs did zero, zilch, squat, nothing, nil, nada. By the end of the second minute, I was wishing I'd ditched the stupid stugs and bought some reliable field guns. The stugs never got a frontal penetration, heck nothing penetrated their armor at all.

Now I was faced with attempting to attack a combined arms dug-in defending force with only a slight advantage in force size. I managed, with great difficulty, to use my guns and my mgs to drive back the soviet defence and win a major victory. But it was costly.

Oh yeah, the T-34 was immobilized by a field gun and bailed, 2 of the light afvs were taken out by 81mm mortar fire, and 2 other light afvs were close assaulted and destroyed by my infantry.

Take away points:

1. Infantry is a lot more capable in CMBB then people are giving them credit for.

2. Uber armor has it's weaknesses.

3. Combined arms and support weapons are key to an attack.

4. The stupid ai doesn't pick enough heavy mgs when defending.

[ October 10, 2002, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: xerxes ]

[Redwolf]

Whatever we make out of it, if you want competive play where both sides have a approximate equal chance of winning, and at the same time you do not want people to win in the purchase phase of the battle by a paper-scissor-rock scheme, then you need rules like Fionn (or mine) armor rules.

People usually think that Fionn rules are only for "gamey" players or to prevent overuse of "gamey" units. This is not at all true, they are about the fun of buying your own stuff, and having that fun without at the same time running into non-fun games. For many players that are about coorperative games with fun, to prevent accidents.

I am working on a set of rules which work by a "vulnerable-to-gun" criterium. You will say, "45long" rule and you will not be allowed to by any vehicle which is not vulnerable to said reference gun.

[Talenn]

xerxes:

StuGs aint for attackin'.

Actually, depending on the map, they can do OK at that too, but as indicated, they arent the best for adverse ground conditions. If you have long lines of sight, just use them for overwatch and point removal.

Amusing story though.

Talenn

[demoss]

3) For every tactic you can devise like that, I'm sure someone else could come in here and say 'yeah, well if I was playing the StuGs I could beat 11 T34s by doing x,y,z,'. At that point its a tactics matchup, but if I have to have 2 to 1 in points in the field to make it come down to tactics, its a problem.

Is it, necessarily? Remember, this example was in the context of an attack, where presumably the attacker should have a point-advantage. And if the T-34s are defending, I'd happily take even numbers at the same quality unless the terrain is wide-open. Think ambush.

[Panzer76]

Talenn, really I dont see ur problem.

1. Most human vs human matches are ME, = Stug of limited value.

2. The russian, everything else being equal, will have more AFVs than the axis player.

3. The Stug have a very limited amount of shells

4. The T-34 rocks against inf! Not so for the Stug.

It seems to me that u have to improve ut tactics more than anything else. As Steve said, no point system will EVER get perfect, I can understand ur reason to improve it, but so far u have not presented a convincing case, for me at least.

No AFV is invinsible, every good CM player should know that!

[killmore]

What is really needed is supply/demand purchase system.

If player keeps buying STUG in 1942 it should become more expensive.

This Cannot be done in CMBB as it is today - you really need many players to balance purchases out.

T-34 would still be cheap because there are tons of them.

T70s could become extremly cheap if no one buys them. The same would apply to 37mm AT guns...

[Warmaker]

xerxes, I agree completely about your little situation with the turretless AFVs on the attack.

A turreted tank is flexible on the attack. Even on the dreaded occasion it becomes immobile it can still face with the turret and give a little support. A StuG is for all intents and purposes useless if the enemy isn't in it's final facing when it becomes immobilized.

Also, it is a matter of preference for me to have good AFVs capable of dealing with armor and infantry. The Tigers are an extreme example for me. The '88 deals with everyone well and it carries a good ammo loadout for both AP and HE rounds. AFVs like the Hetzer and Marders carry the bare bones in terms of HE quantity. Some don't even have a single MG.

[Talenn]

Panzer76 et al:

Ok, I understand why you feel that a StuG is more limited on the attack...it obviously is, but that doesnt meant that it cant perform well there. Put another way, are you really going to pay MORE for a turreted PzIV that can be killed from any aspect?

I mean, sure you can flank a StuG and kill it that way, but you dont have to flank the PzIV to kill it...just shoot head on and boom! (this is the PzIv's that are available concurrently with the StuGF/8 and earlier StuGIIIGs). No fancy maneuvering is required and now the German player has to worry about getting hit. In the StuG, he only really has to be worried about people get to the flanks.

Perhaps its the Panzers that are overpriced, but even on an attack, I'd take my chances with StuGs over a tank that is KOed by the most common enemy vehicle...YMMV. Given that a PzIV and a T34 trade about even, I was focused on the StuG as too cheap. Maybe the turreted AFVs are overpriced in comparison?

Do people go with PzIII/IV's over StuGs in competitive battles where the rarity is similar? So far, from the (admittedly few) battles I've done, I'd say no. What are the rest of y'all seeing? StuGs or Pzs?

Thanx,

Talenn

[Priest]

I may use Stugs in my assault formations but I would use the Panzers in my AT formations with regards to attack.

Stugs are horrible flankers, and bring their guns to bear to slowly to track fast moving vehicles. If you stand way way back and fire long distance then maybe but if they are advancing then turrets are definite advantage.

Also in an assault I will be closing with infantry. That means that I want MGs. 75mm HE is nice except that when you hit the lines you cannot slew around a Stug fast enough to cover a lot.

Just my opinion. And oh yeah you have to spend more resources protecting its flanks, negating any percieved points/cost advantage (see above post by me).

[Priest]

Three words for you with regards to advancing too that make the turreted vehicles superior in CMBB.

Cover Arc Command

[ October 10, 2002, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Priest ]