Purchase points are way off ---- again

[BlackVoid]

As we all know, purchase points matter the most in QBs, where it should be the points that balance out gameplay. Equipment should be priced according to usability and survivability.

Yet, again the points are way off.

Lets compare 2 tanks, that have about the same price.

1942 T34 and 1942 StugIIIF

The latter is a bit cheaper. Yet, it cannot be killed by the T34. A properly used Stug will always win. Even if you take a more expensive KV, you still have no chance against the Stug. The Stug is uber and priced at a mere 100 point is downright ridiculous.

There is no allied armor that can stand up to the Stug, yet the Stug is priced cheaply and is common. Look someplace else for play balance....

CMBO had the same problem with cheap and deadly Churchills, expensive and utterly useless Tigers.

This is seriously disappointing and makes human purchase QBs a no-go for me. The point system should balance the game and not totally imbalance it.

BTS fix this!!!

[Abbott]

There was a lengthy thread on this issue with good explanation last week. If you look back probably around page 15 or so, you may find it.

[ October 21, 2002, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

1942 T34 and 1942 StugIIIF

The latter is a bit cheaper. Yet, it cannot be killed by the T34.

Have you tried a flank shot?

Seriously, this issue has been brought up before; check out the previous thread.

[Renaud]

BlackVoid,

To be honest, I don't think BTS really cares about accurately reflecting QB combat power in unit point values. They've always been way off and probably always will be. Your example is only one of many.

The reason for this is that they are more interested in historical simulation and contemplation of plausible tactical situations than competitive 'ladder-style' play.

Another thing to keep in mind is that a relatively cheap unit can become all-powerful if used in an advantageous situation. How can you every accurately reflect 'combat power' in 'points' when a couple of guys with molotovs can kill a king tiger? The king tiger probably costs over a million reichsmarks, the molotov and russian recruits, next to nothing. At that moment, in that situation, the AT team is worth more points than the Tiger. I can find a dozen 'gamey' ways around the point system if I want to. This is why the game is best played with other enthusiasts who have an interest in authentic recreation of realistic WWII tactical situations. In the case of competitive leagues, the managers have come up with extra rules restricting what/how much you buy in order to alleviate some of these issues.

Ren

[BlackVoid]

Cant find it. What is the subject of the topic?

[russellmz]

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=001766;p=

[Battlefront.com]

Renaud,

The reason for this is that they are more interested in historical simulation and contemplation of plausible tactical situations than competitive 'ladder-style' play.

Incorrect. We set up a scientific system which figures out the "value" of each unit. This system is imperical and cares nothing about how they are used, what type of game is played, etc. The simple reason for that is as you stated just after:

Another thing to keep in mind is that a relatively cheap unit can become all-powerful if used in an advantageous situation.

Correct. And this is why it is impossible to come up with a system that will "balance" a game. There are literally millions of variables that come into play which make it impossible to "balance" games unless many variables are restricted (i.e. removed). For example, a StuG on the offensive is probably not as valuable as a StuG on the defensive. A King Tiger in Fog is probably no better than a PzIV. A T-34/76 in a scenario against NO Axis armor is worth a lot more than in a scenario where the Axis has Panthers. There is also no one way to do this which makes it even more impossible for us to code anything to work in such a way.

The bottom line is... the best we can do is rate a unit (infantry, vehicle, gun, etc.) based on its own intrinsic factors. If there are some mismatches, that is to be expected. But there isn't anything we can do about it.

Steve

[Pak40]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

Lets compare 2 tanks, that have about the same price.

1942 T34 and 1942 StugIIIF

The latter is a bit cheaper. Yet, it cannot be killed by the T34. A properly used Stug will always win. Even if you take a more expensive KV, you still have no chance against the Stug. The Stug is uber and priced at a mere 100 point is downright ridiculous.

There is no allied armor that can stand up to the Stug, yet the Stug is priced cheaply and is common. Look someplace else for play balance....

CMBO had the same problem with cheap and deadly Churchills, expensive and utterly useless Tigers.

This is seriously disappointing and makes human purchase QBs a no-go for me. The point system should balance the game and not totally imbalance it.

First of all, you say nothing about using a T-34 properly. And the proper way to use the T-34 would be to use it on the move with shoot and scoot tactics, not in a head to head dual. The Stug cant fire on the move and has no turret, that's where the slight point advantage of the T-34 comes into play. Flank and kill.

Secondly, you're comparing tanks solely on a tank vs tank basis. There are other uses for tanks other than killing enemy armor.. The T-34 is a better infantry killer because of it's large shell capacity and mgs.

The Hetzer will probably kill a Sherman 105mm 9 times out of 10, yet the Sherman 105 costs a lot more. Does that make the prices wrong? No, because the Sherman 105 is not made for tank killing, it's made for infantry support.

Use your armor to it's advantage and you'll get the most out of it.

[ October 21, 2002, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

[BlackVoid]

One thing is missing from your almighty point calculator.

Survivability of the equipment!!!

The Stug IIIf has excellent survivability in 42.

The T34 has crappy survivability in 42.

What does this mean? It means that your T34 will be dead and the Stug will live. A dead T34 wont do you much good.

The same situation was true for the Tiger in CMBB. Perharps wrongly, its survivability was crap. A big slow target. Noone buyed them, because they were bloody expensive for their use!!!!

Noone buyed Stugs in CMBO either. Why? Because it could be killed way too easily by any allied tank.

BTS please look into what people buy in quick battles and price stuff accordingly. Uber-equipment in a given year should not be cheap!!!

Also useless stuff should not be expensive. :eek:

[PiggDogg]

Void,

Please read and "understand" the content of the post that Russel had set forth for your information.

Life, CMBO, CMBB, and war are all unfair. Just do the best that you can. Live with it. Play two games on the same map & switch sides. Use your units to their best ability for the time period. Have fun and don't get a coronary.

Cheers, Richard

[Larsen]

It is very hard to come up with the correct point value for different armor pieces. One thing that is for sure is that the price should vary from year to year. Here is an example. A Panther in 43 is definitely worth 3 T-34 with 76mm gun. But the situation changes drmatically by 44. In 44 Allies get tanks that can kill Panther at the ranges characteristical for the majority of QBs. So the survivability of the Panther goes down and so should its price. Pretty much the same applies for StuGs. While there are very good on defence in 42 their value goes down in late 43 and even more in 44. Because the Allies get the 85mm and 122m gun in their tanks that can take care of StuGs. But if I remember correctly BTS stated that the price for the armor units does not change with time. In other words the same tank will have the same price in 41, 42, 43 44, and 45. That is the system and we have to live with it.

[BlackVoid]

Thanks Larsen, you have a point there.

If price is not changed between years....

I guess I just have to get back to computer purchase and/or try variable rarity.

Otherwise it is just so predictable.

Still, survivability is an issue that should be considered in the point system. Do not have a good example for CMBB, but the Tiger in CMBO is a classic example. In QBs it was absolutely not purchased by anyone because it was useless.

[Battlefront.com]

Suvivability is factored into the price based on the unit's defensive capabilities. Thin armor, slow speed, etc. all mean the vehicle is likely to be less survivable. AT guns and other things are priced cheaper because of this same reason (i.e. they aree not mobile).

Larsen

So the survivability of the Panther goes down and so should its price.

I strongly disagree. First of all, there is no way to plot such a price increase/decrease because there are far too many variables. For example, after a period of time the Germans have PF 100 and Panzerschrecks out the wazoo. These can comfortably kill any tank on the battlefield. Using your logic *all* Allied armor should get cheaper. Where does one draw the line when there is no line to be seen?

Folks, you guys are just going to have to get over the 1:1 comparision. There are something like 300 different vehicles and hundreds of other units in the game spanning 4 years of warfare in all terrain and weather conditions found on the massive front. Not to mention 6 nation's worth of stuff! Supposing that it is possible to "balance" this is nonsense.

There is no such thing as "balance" in an individual game between two players (or with the AI).

The system we have is the most fair and closest thing to balanced the game will ever see. It could be improved, but as of yet nobody has been able to come up with a better system. And that includes us

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

A follow up to something Redwolf said in the other StuG thread...

The big improvement in pricing between CMBO and CMBB is not, as Redwolf stated, linked to game engine improvements (i.e. MGs being more powerful). I am sure that has an impact, but the big impact is Rarity. In CMBO we could not account for a vehicle's Rarity except to fudge its base price. And that meant a lot of "cheap" but VERY rare units (Pumas come to mind right away) were bought over and over and over again by German players. With Rarity this is a lot less likely to happen.

Steve

[Renaud]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Renaud,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The reason for this is that they are more interested in historical simulation and contemplation of plausible tactical situations than competitive 'ladder-style' play.

Incorrect. We set up a scientific system which figures out the "value" of each unit. This system is imperical and cares nothing about how they are used, what type of game is played, etc. The simple reason for that is as you stated just after: </font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by Larsen:

... One thing that is for sure is that the price should vary from year to year. Here is an example. A Panther in 43 is definitely worth 3 T-34 with 76mm gun. But the situation changes drmatically by 44. In 44 Allies get tanks that can kill Panther at the ranges characteristical for the majority of QBs. So the survivability of the Panther goes down and so should its price ...

But it's price does go down compared to the cost of the tanks it faces. As you say, in 1943, the Russians can by 3 x T34 for each Panther, and the Panther can deal with those 3:1 odds. Later in the war it faces individually more potent Russian armour, but for any given points total it will face less of them. So comparativly, the price of the Panther has gone down. QED.

Regards

JonS

[kmead]

Stugs are not uber vehicles, they just happen to be difficult to kill when met on their own terms. Stugs are also quite prevalent, they were among the most produced vehicles Germany had.

The point of this game is tactics, not being able to face each unit down 1 for 1. I have had good success with Stugs and gotten my clock cleaned when I have used them, it depends on the tactics, and the situation they are used in.

A basic reality of war is that it is not in fact fair or even, The Soviets lost the early war and there was a reason for that happening which included inferior equipment, poor training, a purged officer corp, among many others. The Germans won for the opposite reasons (although inferior equipment does come to mind).

Black Void, might I suggest a change or adjustment in tone? Things like, please, thank you, could, is it possible, and other niceties would help immensely in feeling like talking with you. Speaking to others in a strong commanding tone that demands things is a bit wearing for all involved.Please just try not to come on so strong. Have a nice day.

Edit:

Black Void:

I see that you are from Hungary and as such the English that we all use here on the board is your second (or fifth language knowing most Europeans) language. So please accept my apologies if I offend.

[ October 21, 2002, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: kmead ]

[walpurgis nacht]

This is a little of the topic of purchase points, but why does virtually anyone that writes about the Tiger in CMBO point out that it is useless? I bought these guys all the time in QBs and they kicked arse . . . both on defense and offense. Yes, they are slow . . . but tough . . . ALL around, which made up for their lazy speed. What was I missing? The only thing that ever gave me trouble was a late Churchill.

And Mr. Void . .. you really need a Xanex.

[BlackVoid]

This has been pointed out by someone on the Stug thread, but here it goes again.

Human judgement and experience is better than some kind of calculator. Look at what people buy/avoid in QBs and you will see what stuff is worth. Glaringly obvious price errors surface this way.

In my mind if there is something that noone ever buys, then that stuff is too expensive (relative to its capability in the game).

On the other hand, if something is present in every or every other battle, then that thing is too cheap.

CMBO examples:

Way too cheap: Hetzer, PzIV/70, Churchill, Puppchen

Way too expensive: Tiger, Jagdtiger, Stug (just to mention a few)

You can see that the list is not too long, so I think yes, it can be corrected.

QBs and purchase points should be about balance. This has nothing to do with being historical. If I want to be historical I play a scenario. If I want a challenge of defeating another human I look for a QB. If I want a historical QB, I switch on rarity --> this of course can cause imbalance, but I accept this. But in non-rarity QBs the price should reflect only capability. When prices are way off, then people will realize it soon enough.

To summarize: human judgement and experience will tell you what is over and under priced.

[BlackVoid]

Tigers in CMBO: In 150+ games I have seen them only a few times. If I bought them, they were quickly waxed by Shermans.

About my tone: First is the language barrier, the other thing is that I got a bit angry over the QB I just played (6 T34s waxed by 3 Stugs). Should not have posted today, but instead tomorrow.

Sorry, did not mean to offend anyone.

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

[QB]Tigers in CMBO: In 150+ games I have seen them only a few times. If I bought them, they were quickly waxed by Shermans.

I don't understand . . . the only Sherm that could touch the Tiger was a Jumbo (76mm). Strange you've had enough experience, having "seen them only a few times." Maybe we should test this with a little CMBO QB? Ready when you are.

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by Renaud:

In other words, look at a StugIII F/8 in comparison to it's likely opponents and figure out how many of them on a good day will be needed to knock out the Stug.

Not really feasible. First of all I can just imagine the arguments about what would be the "likely opponents". How do you decide how likely it is that a unit will face infantry or armor, and what kind of infantry and armor? What about are the likely numbers, or the likely terrain, or the likely weather?

Even if you could do that for any given time/situation, bear in mind the "likely opponents" will vary year by year, and sometimes month to month.

Then you would need to do this for each and every one of the hundreds of units in the game.

And at the end of this process some Gamey Bastich will still dig through the database to find the unit that gives the most bang for the buck for that player's playing style.

If we had half a dozen units limited to a single campaign, say as in CC2, sure. On the scale of CMBB I can't see it.

[Renaud]

Yes, but Blackvoid, imagine the never-ending adjustments that would have to take place. Every time you tweaked a unit here, it would unbalance the relationship with yet another unit. It's a complex jumble where I think only the most glaring errors can be corrected.

In this particular case I don't think the Stug is undervalued. I'm rather happy with the value because it generates a situation which is roughly consonant with what I've learned about Stug's in the other thread: they played a large role on the eastern front so should be low-balled point-wise.

Anyway, they CAN be defeated. You just have to look at this as a challenge. At the very least you will have the satisfaction of being killed by a notable German AFV of exception reputation and design quality! Perhaps even by a celebrity german sturmabtielung commander!

Ren

edit: Brian, I pretty much reached that conclusion in my diatribe, so you are kind of making a straw-man argument. As you can see I came full circle. Ah, it's great to blab aimlessly!

[ October 21, 2002, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

[imported_Wildman]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

Tigers in CMBO: In 150+ games I have seen them only a few times. If I bought them, they were quickly waxed by Shermans.

About my tone: First is the language barrier, the other thing is that I got a bit angry over the QB I just played (6 T34s waxed by 3 Stugs). Should not have posted today, but instead tomorrow.

Sorry, did not mean to offend anyone.

I see several CMBO items in your arguement, is this about CMBO or CMBB?

Assuming CMBB, your last QB of 6 T-34s to 3 Stugs. Several things come to mind.

1. Your infantry support. The Stugs are less that stellar here, and if your T-34s support the infantry you could still win.

2. Did you attempt to smoke the Stugs and move into the flanks, or did you try and take them on head on?

3. I assume this is early war and your fighting the no radio problem in T-34s.

Let's face it, the T-34 has a sort of "tank that won the war" mystic about it. Much like the Panther and Tiger had on the Western Front. I remember the screams of protest over the ability of the Allies to kill these tanks.

Look at history, Stugs were built with one purpose in mind, kill other armor. The T-34 is designed to attack armor as well as support the infantry. This dual purpose and greater OVERALL capability is what make the T-34 worth more.

Just like in CMBO, when your opponent bought Hetzers and killed your armor. It was a non factor the rest of the game. The same applies to the StugIIIF.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Wildman:

...Stugs were built with one purpose in mind, kill other armor.

Historically, they were built as a relatively cheap way to get a large caliber gun under armor and onto tracks to get some support into the mororized infantry divisions. A little later on it was realized as a quick cheap way to get a fairly powerful AT gun under armor. It was a way of getting an extended life out of an otherwise obsolete chassis. Same for the Hetzer, BTW.

Michael