QB pricing oddities?

[Gryphonne]

I was toying around with the QB options and encountered some weirdness in the pricing of vehicles. Could anyone care to explain why a StuG IIIG is more expensive than a 76 Sherman (rarity aside)? The StuG is almost as expensive as a Tiger, and we know it's more beneficial to buy a Tiger rather than a StuG The StuG is approximately 290 pts, whereas the Sherman comes in at 260 and the Tiger at 350. I don't get it. Surely, this can't be a rarity question as tanks now have their own seperate rarity rating too?

Besides, in CM1 the StuGs were about the cheapest armor you could get in the German inventory. They were overpowered then with the 80mm homogenous armour rating and underpowered allied guns, but in this game? they are fairly easily countered from the front and don't have a turret. So, any takers?

[LarsS]

I agree. The Germans get 2 Panthers or Tigers at the same cost as 3 Pz IVs, and considering the common engagement distances in the game, and the great difference in protection levels and punching power between them, I have a hard time seeing how their relative value is accurately mirrored in their points cost. Maybe I suck at using the IVs, but against the American armor and ATG threats in the game, I'd take two of the cats any day (that I care about cost-effectiveness, that is) over the three IVs.

And facing Tigers and Panthers with Sherms or Wolverines at a 2:3 ratio is not an inviting prospect unless there is good terrain for manoevering and setting ambushes.

[Gryphonne]

I agree. The Germans get 2 Panthers or Tigers at the same cost as 3 Pz IVs, and considering the common engagement distances in the game, and the great difference in protection levels and punching power between them, I have a hard time seeing how their relative value is accurately mirrored in their points cost. Maybe I suck at using the IVs, but against the American armor and ATG threats in the game, I'd take two of the cats any day (that I care about cost-effectiveness, that is) over the three IVs.

And facing Tigers and Panthers with Sherms or Wolverines at a 2:3 ratio is not an inviting prospect unless there is good terrain for manoevering and setting ambushes.

This is exactly why - when playing a sort of competitive QB - I would opt for bigger cats instead of a turretless box without any real protection. In addition, the JPzIV is only 20 or so pts more expensive than a StuG III, and the JPz IV has much better protection from the front. However, the JPz IV is also 40 pts less expensive than a Panther or Tiger, so while i'm in a shopping spree those cats look very tempting. Naturally, 2 Panthers vs 4 Shermans on a normal map isn't really enjoyable for the opponent.

Also, the Marder is 110 pts and the 20mm recon HT 103 or something? What gives?

[Battlefront.com]

Ah... and the arguing over points starts again

All points are based on internal weights for specific features. It creates an opinion of the worth of a particular vehicle/unit relative to all the others. We're perfectly comfortable with not changing a single point value and agree to disagree. We will not be chasing our tails on point costs with CMx2. Push us hard enough and we'll remove the points again, as we did with CM:SF. So tread carefully

First of all, the Tiger is significantly more expensive than a StuG. With default settings (i.e. regular experience, etc.):

StuG IIIG early/mid costs 278 points.

Advantages:

Dramatically lower silhouette (harder to hit)

Main gun is slightly superior both in AP and HE

M4A3(76)W costs 244 points.

Advantages:

Turret

One extra MG that matters (AAMG isn't worth much)

Frontal armor is roughly equal. Sherman turret is a little tougher than StuG superstructure, but StuG upper hull is a little tougher than Sherman's. StuGs have better frontal protection than PzIV -- some people are not aware of that. (Note that a PzIVH, for example, costs 233 -- less than both the vehicles above).

Remember this is the early 76mm Sherman. No fancy tungsten ammo, no HVSS, no extra armor.

Steve

[MikeyD]

Its odd that people are complaining about relative points values yet are playing with rarity off.

[Laptop]

Its odd that people are complaining about relative points values yet are playing with rarity off.

Yeah that's what I was thinking...weren't Tigers and Panthers fairly rare anyways? With the rarity factored in wouldn't PzIV and Stugs be cheaper?

[Battlefront.com]

Panthers were actually fairly common in Normandy. Tigers, on the other hand, were not. Neither were the 76 mounted Shermans for that matter. So yeah, if someone really has a problem with point balancing... play with Rarity enabled. Strict or Loose, it's going to present a better set of choices than with Rarity Off. It's why Rarity exists in the first place

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Using the Pz IV H as a baseline.

CMBB

PzIV H: 134

Stug IIIG Late: 113 (84% of PzIV H)

Panther D: 239/178%

Tiger E Late: 212/158%

CMBN

PzIV H: 248

Stug IIIG Late: 295/119%

Panther D: 352/142%

Tiger E Late: 362/146%

A lot of people, myself included, felt Stugs were significantly underpriced in CMx1 so I have no issue with them being more expensive now.

The relative cheapness of Tiger and Panther compared to Pz IV is more difficult to understand. The KwK 40 L/48 isn't as effective against Shermans as it was in CMBB (I don't have CMAK so I can't check the values there). So if anything I would have expected the Pz IV to be relatively cheaper compared to the Big Cats.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Rarity premium for Panther G early in August '44 is the same as for Pz IV H late -- zero

Since that is the most common Panther it's probably more appropriate to use it as a comparison, so at 360 points it costs 145% of a Pz IV.

I'm not saying the CMBN values are wrong. Indeed, I think they are closer to correct at least with respect to the Stug (and really, all the turretless TDs were underpriced in CMx1 IMO).

[Sergei]

StuG IIIG early/mid costs 278 points.

Advantages:

Dramatically lower silhouette (harder to hit)

Main gun is slightly superior both in AP and HE

M4A3(76)W costs 244 points.

Advantages:

Turret

One extra MG that matters (AAMG isn't worth much)

Frontal armor is roughly equal. Sherman turret is a little tougher than StuG superstructure, but StuG upper hull is a little tougher than Sherman's. StuGs have better frontal protection than PzIV -- some people are not aware of that. (Note that a PzIVH, for example, costs 233 -- less than both the vehicles above).

I think this isn't giving enough credit to the tactical value of having a fast turret - being able to aim the gun to a direction other than where you're driving is particularly valuable when attacking. Sherman also comes with considerably more HE shells (27 vs 39), which is very valuable when you are trying to clear the victory locations of enemy infantry.

[Sergei]

Panthers were actually fairly common in Normandy. Tigers, on the other hand, were not. Neither were the 76 mounted Shermans for that matter. So yeah, if someone really has a problem with point balancing... play with Rarity enabled. Strict or Loose, it's going to present a better set of choices than with Rarity Off. It's why Rarity exists in the first place

Steve

The problem with Rarity is that it can only result in less balanced outcomes assuming that the actual point values are balanced to begin with. For example, playing with Strict Rarity in July the German player has access to Panthers, while the US player can only buy 75mm Shermans or M10 TD to counter (all that is Standard or Common). Now some of you may like the M10, but I would rather have a real tank with a 76mm gun... The purpose of Rarity systems is not to produce more balanced results, it is to produce more 'historical' results. So for balanced results, play with Rarity turned off!

[Vanir Ausf B]

Agreed. Rarity would be a good means to balance games if it wasn't for Panthers screwing it up for everyone.

[Tank Hunter]

The way I see it if you want to play balanced games go for Starcraft which was designed with balance in mind. CMBN is a simulation of tactical warfare and wars are rarely balanced in real life.

So what if your opponent has Panthers? Find your ways to deal with them, that's the whole purpouse and beauty of this game.

Yesterday I was defending with a platoon of soldiers supported by two heavy machine guns, a Panzershreck team, one PzIV and two mortars.

The Americans came against me with two Shermans, three Stuarts and 2 companies of soldiers supported by HMGs and heavy artillery.

I got blasted by the artillery and tanks in the beginning, and my mortars were overrun by the Stuarts from my left flank since I had concentrated more on my right.

I used terrain cover and intercepted both Shermans eliminating them without any problems.

Then I felt too confident and started chasing Stuarts with my PzIV only to have its' Wpn Control system damaged rendering the main gun useless.

I then used my infantry to hunt the Stuarts down one by one using bocage and walls as cover and throwing grenades at them until all of them were either destroyed or abandoned. All this while my MG42s were cutting down on infantry trying to advance. Result was total victory even though it looked really bad at one point..

[Vanir Ausf B]

When playing against the AI you probably should be at a disadvantage. But in multiplayer games most people prefer more-or-less even setups. That's the purpose of the QB points system. It's part of the game, and it's no more wrong to discuss it than any other aspect of the game.

[Battlefront.com]

I think this isn't giving enough credit to the tactical value of having a fast turret - being able to aim the gun to a direction other than where you're driving is particularly valuable when attacking. Sherman also comes with considerably more HE shells (27 vs 39), which is very valuable when you are trying to clear the victory locations of enemy infantry.

The problem is, as it always is, one of context. If we priced things so a Jagdpanther was fairly cheap vs. a Sherman, and the Germans were defending an open field map... I'd take 1x Jagdpanther vs. 5x Shermans. On the attack I'd rather have the Shermans. If the scenario was me attacking an infantry line, I'd rather have 3x Shermans vs. 3x Jagdpanthers.

So pick a situation, make a case for it, then pick another situation and see how well it fits. Since there are at least a half dozen major situations to envision, this makes point balancing impossible to have "correct". Which is why we tried to ditch points for CM:SF. That didn't work either, so we're really not that interested in chasing our tails again and again in pursuit of something which people will never be happy with.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

When playing against the AI you probably should be at a disadvantage. But in multiplayer games most people prefer more-or-less even setups. That's the purpose of the QB points system. It's part of the game, and it's no more wrong to discuss it than any other aspect of the game.

It's "wrong" in the sense that this is a never ending argument and so at some point we have to just say ENOUGH ALREADY and move on. Look, you guys are still arguing about point balancing we did 10 years ago and tweaked for several years. I'm just saying I'm not going to spend the next 10 years listening to people gripe about the pricing of CM:BN's units. I'd rather bash my left hand with a 3 pound hammer from a deflected hit to a prybar while removing a section of wall for a new shower. Having recent experience with said condition, I'm quite confident about this The swelling in my hand went away within 24 hours, the arguments about this or that price point never goes away.

Steve

[Sergei]

Maybe CMBB's optional randomness could be reintroduced. I always liked using random rarity even though rarity as such wasn't my cup of tea due to other issues it caused. With randomness in values, you cannot count on certain things always being a bargain and some other things never being worth it.

The thing that I most want is a system in which I can freely choose what I want to play with, without feeling that I'm 'penalizing' myself for not picking the most logical choice. The ideal way for this would be if the values were as closely balanced as possible. But if that isn't possible, then the values varying a little would be my second choice. If the intention is not to achieve mythological '(near-)perfect balance', then it doesn't do harm if the values also vary ±10% from game to game.

[jonp]

Panthers were actually fairly common in Normandy. Tigers, on the other hand, were not. Neither were the 76 mounted Shermans for that matter. So yeah, if someone really has a problem with point balancing... play with Rarity enabled. Strict or Loose, it's going to present a better set of choices than with Rarity Off. It's why Rarity exists in the first place

Steve

Can someone give me an idea what the difference between strict and loose?

Thx

jonpfl

[Vanir Ausf B]

It's "wrong" in the sense that this is a never ending argument and so at some point we have to just say ENOUGH ALREADY and move on. Look, you guys are still arguing about point balancing we did 10 years ago and tweaked for several years. I'm just saying I'm not going to spend the next 10 years listening to people gripe about the pricing of CM:BN's units.

Ok, so 10 years is out. Could we have 6 months, or even 6 weeks?

I understand that there is no such thing as a perfect system, but I would rather not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Otherwise we could stop talking about any number of aspects of the game that have been debated for 10 years, such as machine gun effectiveness

[Childress]

The problem with 'buying' units is that as time goes on and the process gets subjected to intense cost/benefit analysis by 1000's of players the wheat tends to get separated from the chaff. It becomes common knowledge which ones are under priced or over priced. Achieving perfect fairness is a Sisyphean task for the developers. In CMBB these were Stugs which offered the best perceived value. SMG infantry, iirc, in CMBO. After a while those units were ubiquitous to the point of stupification in every PBEM game and represented a sound argument against the cherry picking concept. But the squeaky wheels got their wish this time around.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Because the alternative is to let the computer pick, and that has never worked well.

I really don't understand the angst over talking about this. I'm not a programer but I suspect adjusting the units cost would be a trivial task.

[Childress]

I'm not a programer but I suspect adjusting the units cost would be a trivial task.

Not to my recollection. The moaning on the forums was incessant.

But I believe Battlefront was right in bring cherry picking back into the game. The demand for it was too high.

[Vanir Ausf B]

My recollection is that the "moaning" was inaudible over the constant roar regarding machine gun effectiveness, King Tiger gun muzzle velocity, Tiger I mantlet thickness and gamey Jeep rushes.

[Childress]

Hehe, the gamey Jeep rush. We were young back then....

[Speedy]

Don't forget Bren gun tripod running.