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

[Redwolf]

I think the actual model is not in question here, CMBB seems to be the most precise source, if you consider complete model of armor, guns, turn rate etc. If anything I think the turn rate of the StuG III is a little too pessimistic in CM.

The question of the price in CM is more valid, however.

I would be curious whether people find that MGs, cover arc and other CMBB features now make the real tanks competive for the price BFC chose for them. I think most people agree a turret was too expensive in CMBO, but do you think they are worth the price in CMBB> The price for the turret and the MGs is roughly 40 points (StuG versus Pz IV).

[Talenn]

redwolf:

Yes, I think you are on the right track now for what I'm looking for. It all comes down to the points as far as QBs are concerned.

Its true that the StuG lacks MGs and has a mediocre ammo load, but the general 'weakening' of infantry compared to CMBO means that the MG isnt as badly missed. ANYONE with a weapon can stop an infantry advance now (and rightly so), so the addition or loss of a few vehicle MGs is less noticeable IMO.

Also, you have to look at the theater of operations and the time of the StuG's 'dominance'. This isnt a bazooka heavy Western Front. There are NO viable Infantry AT weapons in 42-43 for the Russians. This means that it falls to their own AFVs to take out the enemy AFVs in most cases (especially on the attack, where the defending StuGs are completely in their own element. If you have a vehicle out there that is effectively invulnerable beyond 100m (frontally), that makes it VERY tough for a Russian advance.

Ok, now I'm sure there are those of you out there who will say "Well, thats the way it was"...fine, maybe so (although I'm not 100% convinced of that utter invulnerability), but who the heck wants to GAME that? The point values are in place to provide a balance playing field (within reason) and to create an interesting and challenging game. IMO, the point value of the StuGs does not adequately reflect its capabilities in those years.

Treeburst155:

Ideally, people shouldnt have to have 'gentlemens agreements' about certain vehicles and whatnot. Thats the job of the point values, especially now that rarity is in the equation. If the cost is set to accurately reflect the capabilities, then there shouldnt be any 'no brainer' picks that need to be avoided by outside agreement.

So, what are people's takes on the cost? Do you think its set to a level that reflects the capability? If so, my prediction is that the T34s will become an endangered species in that time frame (and probably overall). A T70 is a LOT cheaper, and has the same kill ability to the flanks as the T34. Both will be equally dead if a StuG hits it, but you'll have more T70s (almost twice as many). Unless you know your opponent isnt fielding vehicles (Infantry or Mech formation), I just cant see spending 111 points for a T34.

Talenn

[Andreas]

The T34 is only mildly more expensive than a Stug. It is more expensive than a T70, but for that you get:

</font>

• survivability against ATGs that the T-70 does not have (37mm useless, 50mm marginal)</font>
• much more effective HE/Cannister against infantry</font>
• much better gun against any tank but Stug (e.g. PzIV 50mm turret front)</font>
• survives loss of TC/single crew member which makes T70 useless</font>
• better survivability against artillery</font>
• more machine guns
  </font>

I'd take that any day.

To expect BTS to be able to design a game system that is safe against abuses is just not realistic. If you are seriously concerned about the abuse of Stugs in QBs, either play scenarios, or play people who share your interest in historical playing.

Regarding the correct modelling - I trust BTS and their work over any other wargame. There simply is no comparison - unless someone brings Real Life data telling us of frontal defeats of 80mm armoured Stugs by the 76.2mm gun (and remember - 80mm armour was not an accident, it was purposefully chosen because it would defeat the 76.2mm round - see also Tiger side armour) I'd go with Charles equations over anything else.

BTW - Valentine 6-pdr should be able to defeat the Stug frontally at short ranges, I am not sure about that though, and can not check on the availability since I am at work.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Rickovich:

Any russian commander who get's worried only after hearing stugs in the area isnt too good in the first place.Caution has to be the watch word and flanking is just good armor tactics regardless of whats involved.Be worried,be cautious,be victorious.(Btw I wasnt discussing history or Russky leadership or lack thereof.)Just pointing out the flaws that can be exploited in any turrentless afv.K'I'm done here.Just my 2 shots

A yes I shall have to pick up that fine work 1956 “How I Rickovich won the

Great patriotic war by killing many fascist's.” aka “Why every other Russian commander was a whimpering mouse dog compared to my handsomeness and cunning bravery.”

[Danny Chung]

Again referring to my StuG books, I see that StuG crews frequently removed the purpose made ammo holders and simply stored the rounds on the floor thereby increasing the ammo load to over 80 rounds.

Of course it made the vehicle heavier but at least it could remain in action longer. Nothing worse than running out of ammo when you need it especially in CMBO and CMBB operations.

I was hoping BTS would incorporate this feature in CMBB but it appears not to be (I haven't received the game yet).

Still I'm looking forward to testing the StuGs once Hong Kong Post finally deliver CMBB to me.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Talenn:

...but the general 'weakening' of infantry compared to CMBO...

...There are NO viable Infantry AT weapons in 42-43 for the Russians...

Wrong on both accounts. Infantry has been significantly strengthened against armor in CMBB. Russian infantry is quite capable of taking out Tigers (which Russian tanks are useless against) in 42-43.

To say that the StuGs are underpriced is ridiculous in my estimation. By the logic i am seeing, the T-34s and KVs of 1941 are under priced... the PzIII in 42 is underpriced... the Tiger I is underpriced. The base prices are based on capability overall. the StuGs have no turret, lack mgs and have a relatively low ammo load out. Also, its high velocity 75 isn't all that good against infantry. It looks like it is priced right to me.

[blazethedog]

Have to agree that the Stugs are great, too a point. So far I have only been playing QBs and my experience is that more often than not, if you let the computer pick the forces, and you get armor, you will get a Stug. The down side is that in a recent QB I had 2 Stugs set up for use as a fire brigade and bingo, they both moved to no more than 25 meters and bogged down, became immobilized, and due to the location of one unit(a reverse slope) were virtually worthless. This lets you understand why the tigers and Panthers came out with much wider tracks. Bogging was a problem for the Germans from 41' on and became a primary advantage for the russians once the T34 became available. Not having a turret makes it extremely difficult to track and target moving armor once it gets closer than 250m. On the plus side, give me a Stug any day over a MKIV. I find the IV's get knocks out pretty fast in a shooting battle. I well positioned Stug can take out perhaps 3-4 T34's before being overwelmed but, that is pretty much historically accurate. I forget where I heard it, but the americans complained heavily about the deadly accuracy and penetrating ability of the 88mm gun in Normandy. After the fighting was over in the area, the experts inspected the knocked out vehicles and discovered that well over 90% were hit by 75mm fire(not the reported 88mm). (Strange that the solders couldn't tell the difference by sound as the 88 sounds a lot like a photon torpedo being fired were the 75mm sounds much deeper, but war is very confusing so I guess that is justifiable.) Anyway, A well positioned Stug on defence with a limited firing arc is wonderful. Stick them between buildings or near the woods where the flanks can protect them. The Russian 76mm can be a tough gun once it gets in close. The russians have always had problems with mixing the powder for ammo and this shows with a lower muzzle velocity, hence declining killing power as the range expands. Keep the T34's moving and try flanking as much as possible. BTW, I like using the MKIII's more for infantry support. I believe they have 2 MGs and the short 75mm on the MKIII N is a real killer. They can also take out any of those pesky T70s or armored cars. Best of luck all.

[Talenn]

Berlichtingen:

Regarding infantry vs AFVs, two things:

1) From the manual, pg 221 (under changes from CMBO)..."Standard grenade attacks vs tanks are reduced in effectiveness". I take that to mean that 'close assaults' in CMBB are LESS effective than in CMBO (and appear so from results in the game)...granted there are molotov cocktails, but they dont seem overly effective. In the right siutation, they can work, but I'd hardly call them reliable.

2) If there is a Russian infantry AT weapon other than the above available in 42/43, please show me where. Do they have ATMMs or somesuch somewhere that I'm just missing?

Its obvious that compared to CMBO, ALLIED infantry have a much harder time destroying AFVs unless in built up areas (where the StuGs arent as useful anyways). I dont see any way in which you can think that Allied infantry are stronger or even AS strong vs AFVs in this game.

Regarding Point Value:

Obviously your opinion is a valid as mine. As I said above, time will tell. But I bet you will see a higher proportion of StuGs in most battle than even more 'common' vehicles just because they are so effective.

Andreas:

You make some very valid points regarding the T34 vs T70. A lot is going to depend on the map and enemy force selection, but I think StuGs are going to be present in most battles, rendering many of the points you mentioned, moot. I could be overanalyzing here, but based on the Hetzer experience in CMBO, I'm planning on seeing PLENTY of StuGs in QBs.

Concerning point values, yes, I agree that its nearly impossible to balance 100% accurately. But you CAN look at trends and 'overused' vehicles/units. If certain units are being seen over and over again by players in QBs, then it stands to reason that they may to be too much of a 'deal'. IIRC, the Puppchen (sp?) was one such weapon in CMBO. They were 'accurately modeled' and cost too little, so people bought them in droves because they were so cost effective.

I think the same forces will be at work here. Again, it may take some time to see trends (there are a lot of time periods out there and a large variety of vehicles to try out), but in 3 of the 4 QBs I've done so far with people, they have had StuGs in that time period in lieu of any other AFVs...that right there is telling me something.

Thanx for the info on the Valentine. I'll give it a try as well, but I had been avoiding using too much Lend Lease stuff if possible. I want to play East Front, not Western Front in Russian uniforms.

Talenn

(edited for typos of which I'm sure there are more...)

[ October 07, 2002, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Talenn ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Talenn:

Thanx for the info on the Valentine. I'll give it a try as well, but I had been avoiding using too much Lend Lease stuff if possible. I want to play East Front, not Western Front in Russian uniforms.

You should be safe with the Valentine then - it certainly saw more action in the East than it ever did in the west (only as FOO/command tank, AA tank, bridge-layer and SP conversion Archer), or in Africa (lower numbers, shorter time-frame).

[Herr Oberst]

Originally posted by Talenn:

They were 'accurately modeled' and cost too little, so people bought them in droves because they were so cost effective.

Talenn, there will always be the types who go out and analyze the unit database, and never pick anything except this mortar "because the 'aggregate blast value' (ammo count * blast value) is the highest per purchase point for this side or that".

Hell, I just like playing. Anyone can with with the optimized picks. The best folks can win with the OB/TOE stuff.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Talenn:

OK, to me, it appears that the 'uparmored' StuGIIIF and F8 are a bit over the top in terms of, if not historical effectiveness (on which I'm fuzzy), then on a 'per point' basis (which is easier to dispute).

Welcome to my world as a (primarily) allied player in CMBO. Cost of a Panther and easy 8 Sherman are about the same. Which is a better anti-tank tank? Hetzer anyone?

They seem to merrily trash almost any Soviet vehicle that is realistically available until the appearance the the T34/85. They come down to a reasonable 'rarity cost' in the Fall of 42 and remain 'dominant' until somewhere around Spring of 44. Their game cost is a VERY modest 102/103 points base.

There are a few things that can take on the StuG a bit earlier than Spring 44. I'll have to check, but I believe the SU 76 can do the job, and it is available in spring of 43. The SU85 and KV85 show up in the fall of 43. Finally, the much maligned Sherman becomes available in the fall of 42.

[blazethedog]

Herr Oberst. Have to agree with you. I really like picking my own equipment as I think the AI tends to select way too much infantry(probably realistic) but I prefer using a much smaller, well armed force. Crunch time comes though when you let the AI pick both sides. It can be very frustrating but also a lot of fun. Just finished a QB(Aug43') were I had 2 companies of Luftwaffe troops(green), a couple independent units, 1 75mm AT, 2 50mm AT, 1 37mm AT and a Pioneer Company(green). I got the living mess kicked out of me when the Reds rolled up with 1 Company of infantry, 4 BT64 cars, 1 KV1, and 13 T34's. Man, you would never expect that mix, but who knows, maybe they had broken through the front lines and caught the Hermann's worthless troops with their pants down. My point is that you just never know what you are going to face so this forces you to learn the units and try to make due with what you have. In this instance, I should have ceded 2 of the 5 large flags right from the get go. I pulled a draw out, but only because the AI was dumb enough to accept it. The results were, 75mm AT taken out round 5 after KOing 2 T34's at a range of about 150m. Concrete pillbox with MG KOed round 7 after taking about 10 76mm hits at 75m. 1 50mm AT Koed itself when attemting to fire at T34 with initial round, remaining 50mm AT was intercepted as it attempted to reposition itself and only got one round off. 37mm AT Koed after firing at front hull of T34(worthless I know) in round 10. Final tally was the Pioneers were routed or surrendered, all guns were gone but amazingly, I destroyed all but the KV and 5 T34's. I knew the moment I saw the forces I was going to lose but figured, "What the heck, let's see what the boys can do!". Could it have been different? You bet, the AI constantly picks green troops. If my guys had not broke so soon, I might have held my own and then some. Just a quick question, what does the "computer experience +1,+2,+3 do? Best to all.

[Andreas]

Talenn - one thing you really have not mentioned regarding the Stug IIIF (late) is its own rarity. In June 1942 100%. It is actually cheaper for the Soviet player to get a captured Stug IIIF (lesser armour, but 75L43 gun) that is able to defeat the IIIF (late) for 77 points (+150%). Or two T34obr43 at 111pts (-5%). Which is still pretty good. In July rarity for the Stug drops to 50% - still steep.

In December that changes to 10% for the Stug IIIF8. That is crunch time for the Soviets, since they have little then to oppose it. In April 1943 the Germans get Stug IIIG for 112pts at 0% and the Soviets get Valentine IX with the 57mm gun for less than the stug (67 +30%). The Valentine IX comes in in January with 100% rarity, dropping off rapidly to 30% by April.

So your window is really at most reaching from July 1942 to December 1942, and not any longer than that, if you play with rarity on. If not, you are just asking for gamey force selection anyway. What I am basically saying is that claims a la 'there is nothing up to 1944 that can touch them' are panic mongering, not to put too fine a point on it.

The Valentine has a marginal chance to defeat 80mm vertical front armour out to 1,000m. It is a very realistic tank to use for the Soviets, who preferred to use it in forward detachments, i.e. where you had a high chance of encountering equal resistance.

[Talenn]

Andreas:

Yes, I checked out the Valentine and it does kill it at about 600m or so if you are careful. As I said earlier, I was tending to avoid Lend Lease equipment. I suppose in those 'lean' time periods, its not really possible to avoid them if you want to have a capable AFV.

The problem DOES persist until mid 44 though with most available Soviet vehicles (and AT guns). Its not until the T34/85 comes around that they have something that can reliably combat the StuGs and not have a high rarity (if there are some others, please let me know...I'm going on trial and error here and its time consuming! ).

On the issue of rarity, I 'rounded' to Fall of '42. And, as you say, the Valentine isnt practical until late Spring of 43. The StuGs will be present in force from about September, I believe (I dont have the data in front of me), and nothing that is a 'real' (for lack of a better term) Soviet AFV comes along that can beat it until the T34/85.

The intention here is not to 'panic monger', but to either 1) find out if there ARE alternatives (and you did state one) or 2) to raise the awareness of players so that they can begin to monitor the StuGs effectiveness per cost. A larger data sampling is obviously required, but people wont be looking for that data unless they aware of a potential problem.

Herr Oberst:

Yeah, I think I'm about to become a big fan of having the AI pick both forces. That way there wont be optimum units for every mission. Either that or I'll go with some Ops. The trouble there is trying to get them together for multiplayer.

Marlow:

The SU-76 is a no-go. It can theoretically kill them if the have Tungsten, but in practice, I havent had much luck with them frontally. They dont always fire Tungsten earlier enough, miss with them, or else fail to kill even on a hit. I ran 8 SU-76s against 5 StuGIIIG (mid) about 10 times and not once did the Soviets pull off a win. This is at engagement ranges of 500-700m where the SU-76s should begin to have effect on paper.

I havent seen SU-85s or KV-85s available that early at a reasonable price tag. Perhaps playing variable rarity would help there.

Thanx again for the input and discussion on this.

Talenn

[Andreas]

The SU85 is available from October 43 at 113 +40%. The common Stug then costs 114 or somefink. The SU85 then drops to 30% extra by December. That is fairly reasonable and affordable if you are that worried about the Stugs. You can always buy a few light tanks to try to get flank shots and then use the SU86 for ambush.

You can check rarity best in the scenario editor, BTW.

[Talenn]

Andreas:

The SU-85 is not an answer to the StuGs IMO. On a per cost basis, the StuGIIIG (mid) slaughters them at ranges of 500-600m. The StuGs usually (about 70% of the time) kill in one shot while round after round from the SU-85 bounces or 'breaks up'.

Ok, now why would the SU-85 be the same (base) price as the StuG? It has no MGs (although the StuG has one), has no turret, and LOSES to the StuG. That is just one more little link into why I think the StuGs are underpriced. Both suffer the same general disadvantages, yet one fairly easily wins in a stand up fight and costs the same. When it is introduced, it wins hands down against most opposition. I dont see the logic.

Any ideas?

Thanx,

Talenn

[ October 07, 2002, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: Talenn ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Talenn:

Andreas:

The SU-85 is not an answer to the StuGs IMO. On a per cost basis, the StuGIIIG (mid) slaughters them at ranges of 500-600m. The StuGs usually (about 70% of the time) kill in one shot while round after round from the SU-85 bounces or 'breaks up'.

Ok, now why would the SU-85 be MORE expensive? It has no MGs, has no turret, and LOSES to the StuG. That is just one more little link into why I think the StuGs are underpriced. Both suffer the same general disadvantages, yet one wins in a stand up fight and costs less. I dont see the logic.

Any ideas?

Thanx,

Talenn

SU 85 is faster, has lower ground pressure, better hp to weight ratio and has a better HE blast plus a better HE penetration.

[Talenn]

Bastables:

All true, so I suppose it all comes down to the 'weighting' of the formula.

Personally, I'd rather go with an MG, relative frontal invulnerability to almost all enemy guns, and the ability to kill anything up to a IS-2, but to each his own.

Talenn

[Warmaker]

lol!!! Tungsten, lol!

[Chad Harrison]

The day after I got the game, I posted a similar thread praising my new favorite tank: the StuG III F/8! I love those little guys. Cheap and hard hitting. Just like my old sherman75's . . . I miss those guys!

Chad

[Subvet]

One of the things I think that is really interesting about this thread is that the T-34 is almost useless against the front of the Uber-StuG but that the lowly Sherman can nail them. The next time I hear people slamming on the Sherman and heaping praise on the T-34 I'm going to bring this situation up.

[Battlefront.com]

Hehe... this is an argument that has gone on since the first day of CMBO's release. Only the vehicle names have changed

OK, simple fact... there is absolutely *no* pricing system that can offer "perfect" balance. Let me repeat that... NONE! That means there are cases where two sides can pile up the evidence and counter evidence to either support the system we use or to argue for a change. To assume for even one second that this is possible to avoid is pure and utter folly.

Now, a reminder about what our point system does and does not simulate:

The base price of any unit is set depending on a host of well rounded attributes that the unit itself posesses and to what degree. There is absolutely zero accounting for what it can do to specific units or what can be done to it by specific units. None. Why? Have you seen how many months and units are available in CMBB, the number of months simulated, the variety of terrain, the effects of the large variety of weather effects, the possibilities of supporting unit types, etc.? Any idea how many billions of possible combos that comes out to be? Personally, I'd rather not know and just stick with "way to many"

This is an important point to keep in mind in this particular version of the well worn debate about pricing. More specifically, there is absolutely no accounting for the suposed invulnerability of the StuG during its hayday. Why? Because it would be impossible to do this fairly and scientifically. And that means the system would have to be perverted and destroyed simply to bend to one particular circumstance. Once you do that, there is no longer a fair and equitable system and the whole core of the game falls apart. Name any system you wish, and I can name an exception that would show it to be vulnerable to such a situation.

OK, so it should be obvious to everybody that we can not custom tweak the price of any one unit vs any other unit in any circumstance at all. So what about availability?

Rarity was designed with the sole purpose of accounting for quantity and timing of use in the field. Anybody quibbling about pricing who is not taking into consideration Rarity should simply exit the discussion since any debate centering around realism must involve Rarity. If the debate is just about having a fun matchup, Rarity should also be accounted for because the war had a natural balance to it which was in no small part due to the chance of this or that unit showing up for battle (i.e. King Tigers rock, but what were the chances that a T-34/85 or IS-2 would ever have seen one?)

Now, some amount of debate in the past has centered around questioning the validity of the "weights" we use to evaluate a unit's inherent price. Fair enough. But I must point out that even the strongest cases we have seen put forth have equally strong cases pitted against them. This thread is no different in that regard. It is also always the case (as far as I can think of) that the person arguing for change has not fully accepted what that change will do to the rest of the system. Sure, it might "fix" that StuG matchup situation in early 1943, but what does it do to the hundreds of other common matchups in the other months? It is a piece of cake to focus in on one issue and ignore all the others. We, as the designers of the game, have no such luxury. We *must* create one system that works for the entire game, not thousands of special case systems that may or may not work in the majority's opinion (a reminder again that NO system is perfect).

The final argument of "well, it should be a fair and fun matchup". Ask for definitions of "fair" and "fun" and you will likely get a dozen different answers, some of which will be diametrically opposed to each other. So this is no standard that can be used. We generally use "historical accuracy" as the arbitor. And in this case the historical record shows that the StuGs enjoyed a time of domination on the battlefield when the situations were favorable. CMBB simulates that, which pretty much makes it "end of story" for me.

To sum up the above:

1. The Base Price *must* be based on the unit's inherent qualities in total isolation from any other specific unit or timing.

2. Rarity *must* be taken into consideration in order to keep battles (roughly) inline with historical matchups. Some inherently cheap vehicles are quite effective in some circumstances (Pumas in Hedgerows for example), but were in fact so rare that the enemy really shouldn't have to worry about meeting up with them. Or at least not worry about meeting up with them every other game!

3. No pricing system, and I mean NO pricing system, is perfect. That means there will be some matchups that some people will debate as being unfair. There might even be a valid argument to be put forward too. But change the system for that ONE matchup and you will almost certainly create another mismatch. Maybe even 10, 20, or a 100! And because there are literally billions of possible matchups, it is foolish to think that there is a way to account for even the "most important" without making the system inherently biased.

4. If things are changed solely because someone, or group of someones, defines the "fix" as being "more fun/fair", then the entire game system is lost to the wilderness of biased opinions and narrow focus. No system can be designed to simulate "fun" and therefore no solution can be formed using "fun" as the basis. A simulation must be based on rational facts and figures for it to have any worth or any degree of fairness.

So where does that leave us? No changes to the system

Steve

[Talenn]

Steve:

Thanx for the interesting commentary. A lot of it makes sense in the context of what I've said above and I've acknowledged that no point system for a game of this scope can ever be perfect.

Does that mean that it cant be closer? I dont think so. I find it a little disturbing that you leave no margin for error...ie, your view appears to be that it is as good as its ever going to be, so changing it is out of the question.

Obviously CMBO underwent some changes to the points on some vehicles/weapons based on their performance in game and the experience of players with the equipment. If you had the same stance then (and I seem to recall a similar posting years ago ), we'd still be seeing Puppchens out the wazoo.

I was one of the original people to point out the under-modeled MGs in CMBO and received a similar reply about how the game was right and my perception were wrong. Fine, I can accept that. But apparently, somewhere down the road, others (including yourselves) eventually came to see that they WERE indeed a bit 'off' as well. I hope that if others see a problem here (or anywhere else), that they can eventually be hammered out like the MGs (which I wholeheartedly think are correct this time around).

FWIW, I'm not even 100% sure the pricing is off yet. Like I said above, it APPEARS to be 'off' based on it's capabilities compared to the capabilities of other vehicles. It may very well be accurate and I'm just not seeing all the permutation within. In fact, thats about half of the reason I posted this...to solicit other's opinions and to see if others are seeing a preponderance of StuGs over other vehicles in their QBs.

Anyways, its certainly your call. But, IMO, to say that 'x' is never going to be changed because it can never be perfect is somewhat strange for a release version of a game. No matter how much you try and how hard you crunch the data, errors are bound to be made. I would imagine that even with the number of testers you had, the number of games being played now will far outnumber the tester's efforts in a matter of weeks. That gives you a FAR larger sampling of data (and a different sampling from the hardcore grogs). I hope that its possible to change the 'system' if somewhat glaring (or recurring) issues do occur.

Thanx again for the reply and thanx for a great game...I love it despite my growing hatred for all things StuG!!

Talenn

[The Bard]

Talenn,

I just wanted to commend you on a starting a board with some excellent discussion, but more importantly on a well-thought out response to the above.

I think that Battlefront is to be commended in responding to questions. Their response as well was very well thought out, but it left something to be desired.

The bottom line is this, people discussing issues on this board are playing the game and love it. It is too bad that discussions like this are looked at more as criticisms instead of what they really are, a community effort to explain, discuss, and point out possible (note the word "possible") improvements. A lack of validity garnered from such efforts is dissappointing.

[ October 08, 2002, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: The Bard ]

[Battlefront.com]

Talenn,

This is the sort of debate I actually enjoy spending time on. Nicely stated, rationally thought out. Doesn't mean I gotta agree, but then there wouldn't be much of a debate

I find it a little disturbing that you leave no margin for error...ie, your view appears to be that it is as good as its ever going to be, so changing it is out of the question.

Not quite. I make no pretention that the current system is as close to perfect as it is going to be. But rather am saying it is very easy to take a very small slice of the game and claim change would benefit that one slice WITHOUT having to be accountable to what that change does to the rest of the game. We had a couple dozen testers bashing away on CMBB for many, many months prior to letting you all have a crack at it. We don't go changing around critical variables just to see what would happen. There first needs to be a compelling argument that:

a) there really is a problem.

that this problem manifests itself in a very predicatable PATTERN throughout the game.

c) that there is a remedy that would adequately address the problem as a pattern without upsetting the rest of game.

I have not seen any three of these established yet. The "problem" as defined by you appears to be correct to me from a historical standpoint.

Obviously CMBO underwent some changes to the points on some vehicles/weapons based on their performance in game and the experience of players with the equipment.

This is true. But very few cases was this done and mostly because there was no Rarity system in place. In other words, we fudged with some prices because they were too inexpensive due to the lack of an ability to account for rarity. Off the top of my head I can't think of any unit price we changed because we thought the value was itself unfair.

If you had the same stance then (and I seem to recall a similar posting years ago ), we'd still be seeing Puppchens out the wazoo.

See above

I was one of the original people to point out the under-modeled MGs in CMBO and received a similar reply about how the game was right and my perception were wrong. Fine, I can accept that. But apparently, somewhere down the road, others (including yourselves) eventually came to see that they WERE indeed a bit 'off' as well.

There really wasn't all that much wrong with the simulation of MGs. It was a combo of issues, the most important of which being the RUN command and the lack of what we now call Advance and Assault. We had all three wrapped up into RUN and that caused way too many problems. Once we realized that some people were abusing the system we looked beyond the simplistic cries of "BTS fix the MGs or do somefink" and examined what exactly was going wrong. That can not be equated to the pricing of a vehicle. At least not as presented thus far.

It may very well be accurate and I'm just not seeing all the permutation within. In fact, thats about half of the reason I posted this...to solicit other's opinions and to see if others are seeing a preponderance of StuGs over other vehicles in their QBs.

Fair enough And I think you learned quite a few things from the others here, which is why this Forum is so great. The StuGs did in fact rock. They weren't the best thing since sliced bread, but they did a fantastic job. And at times the Soviets had a difficult time dealing with them. However, remember that in most situations when Soviet armor showed up, there was no (or little) German armor around to counter it. Doesn't matter how good a StuG is vs. a T-34/85 if there is no StuG in that sector

No matter how much you try and how hard you crunch the data, errors are bound to be made.

Very true. And no matter how hard someone, or a group of someone, argues for a change based on opinion, I can almost assure you that there will be another group right there arguing the opposite Very few things in CM are B&W issues, but instead balances of the whole or best guesses. When someone suggests that something should be done differently, they need to make a pretty compelling argument that the status quo is not only more likely wrong than right, but that it is also something that can/should be changed. This is obviously tough to do, which is good since think how scatterbrained each CM patch would be if we bent with whatever wind blew the hardest the day before we released it?

I hope that its possible to change the 'system' if somewhat glaring (or recurring) issues do occur.

Of course. But first that has to be demonstrated. So far this thread has pretty much lined up against a change being necessary or historically correct. And no attempt has been made to show a pattern of problems with the system that came up with the StuG pricing (remember, we don't pull these values out of thin air, they are "scientifically" calculated).

Thanx again for the reply and thanx for a great game...I love it despite my growing hatred for all things StuG!!

Play as the Germans and you will likely think differently Or you could grow to love the Sherman 76 or British 6 lbr armed tanks, just like the Soviets did.

Steve