Treeburst155 Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Compare the prices of the three early war Soviet Flamethrower tanks, the OT-130, OT-133, and OT-134. The 134 is actually two points cheaper (53) than the other two inspite of the fact that the turret has significantly more armor than the other two; AND the OT-134 has a 46mm main gun to go with the flamethrower. The OT-130/133 don't have any main gun. I could see no other differences between the units in the unit info boxes other than the fact that the OT-130 has one less MG than the 133/134. Is there a little glitch here, or is there some characteristic of the OT-134 that keeps its value down relative to its gunless, less armored siblings? I'm looking at costs in the editor so rarity is not involved here. Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted November 19, 2002 Author Share Posted November 19, 2002 Does nobody else find this curious? Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly Pusher Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 I too find it curious since you ask. The moral of this story ? Buy the 134 !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 The 130 and 133 have a lot more fuel for the flamethrower; 28 "shots" vs. 11 for the 134. That's the only reason I can see for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted November 19, 2002 Author Share Posted November 19, 2002 Leave it to Vanir to figure it out. I missed the "shots" factor completely. I'm sure that's the answer. I'd still rather have the 134 with the up-armored turret and the gun. Thanks, Vanir! Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 I launched all 11 shots out of that thing in one turn a while back (remember cmplayer?) so the larger number of shots might actually be worthwhile. Of course, the area in front of that tank was devoid of any enemy units that's for sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Treeburst155: [QB]Leave it to Vanir to figure it out. Ok, Vanir... Look at the BA-10 vrs. the BA-6. There was a thread on the cost differences between them yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 It's the ammo load again, especially the mg ammo; 140 vs. 83. The rest of the differences between the two are pretty minor. Having said that, I'd probably take the BA-10 myself, since the BA-6 would likely not live long enough to shoot off all that ammo anyway. I think (but am not sure) CM prices ammo linearly i.e. having 200 rounds of ammo costs twice as much as 100 rounds. It would be better if the price increase decayed as ammo load went past a certain point since you wont use all of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: [QB]It's the ammo load again, especially the mg ammo; 140 vs. 83. The rest of the differences between the two are pretty minor.Given the survivability issue I think the ammo difference is far more minor than the others, since they all act it boost the BA-10's survivability (faster, more armor, lower sil.), even if only a little. (I think the sil. and speed differences are the most significant.) But, OTOH, maybe the key is that while both have very, very low suvivability against any sort of ranged AT weapon, but for anti-infantry work the generous ammo load of the BA-6 gives it a clear advantage. But, OTGH, maybe BFC's attitude is "Yes, maybe the BA-10 is superior, but it's only a matter of a few points. That's not enough of a disparity for us to revise the formula - it has a tough job, and it does what it needs to do." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Given a choice between the BA-6 and the BA-10 I would choose neither, and instead go with the A-10. Sure, rarity is a bitch, even when using substitute Russian pilots. Still, having the ability to plink Tigers from 4 miles away with a Maverick, or go thru a column of Panthers with the chain gun, smells like...victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Tarqulene: But, OTGH, maybe BFC's attitude is "Yes, maybe the BA-10 is superior, but it's only a matter of a few points. That's not enough of a disparity for us to revise the formula - it has a tough job, and it does what it needs to do."BFC's position has always been that it bases cost purely on physical potential without regard to likely circumstances it will be used in or potential of likely opponents. So theoretically a tank with 500mm of frontal armor would be much more expensive than a tank with 200mm of frontal armor even though the extra 300mm is pretty much a waste. This is an approach I generally agree with, but I think there are some common sense exceptions that could be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Hey why no mention of that crafty little BA-20?? Why, I think it's a cute li'l bugger, whoever did the model for it must have been a real PRO-modeller, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 These flamethrower tanks have an extremly high rate of fire. You lose the 11 shots in two turns or so. That justifies the low price, I wonder what justifies that this thing is using the flamethrower like a SMG in first place. Just because it can do fast ROF doesn't mean it has to if it has so few ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts