QB pricing oddities?

[$Pec5]

Does anyone else have this issue:

When buying a platoon of tanks I will delete everything in the batallion except for the platoon of choice. Sometimes I will even delete tanks within the platoon if I just want a couple tanks.

The problem arises, however, that when I buy a platoon of tanks, the cumulative points of the tanks in the platoon will not add up to the actual points that I spend on the tanks. For instance, if I purchase a platoon of only 2 m10 TD's, their cumulative value is 220 points in the "platoon" points section, but in the "batallion" points section it comes to 258 or so points, which is more than the cumulative points of both tanks. Everything else in the batallion is deleted save for those two tanks, however, so what is contributing towards the extra points??

[poesel]

There is a solution for under priced units which would not involve BFC.

A player who wants to use said units has to buy a certain amount of foxholes (which he does not use in the game) to adjust the price of the unit. This is even cheat proof for non-artillery units as you can count the holes on the end screen if you like.

Of course someone would actually have to compile such a list and it has to be agreed upon by the players. But I guess if there's such a strong interest here someone will show up.

For over priced units it could work, too, although it's a bit clumsy. You would have to tell your opponent beforehand to buy a certain number of foxholes to counter your expensive units. That might give away parts of your setup.

[womble]

Does anyone else have this issue:

When buying a platoon of tanks I will delete everything in the batallion except for the platoon of choice. Sometimes I will even delete tanks within the platoon if I just want a couple tanks.

The problem arises, however, that when I buy a platoon of tanks, the cumulative points of the tanks in the platoon will not add up to the actual points that I spend on the tanks. For instance, if I purchase a platoon of only 2 m10 TD's, their cumulative value is 220 points in the "platoon" points section, but in the "batallion" points section it comes to 258 or so points, which is more than the cumulative points of both tanks. Everything else in the batallion is deleted save for those two tanks, however, so what is contributing towards the extra points??

Every "Formation" you buy has an extra cost of 50 points. But in return, every element that you could buy separately is cheaper. IIRC, tanks are 15pts cheaper in a formation than they are individually, so the break-even is 4 tanks, or 3 if you assign 5 points of value to the option to have all those tanks, with some exceptions, be HQ-eligible. It's the way it's supposed to be. Don't buy just two tanks of one platoon from a battalion: buy two "single vehicle" tanks and attach them into your infantry formation.

[Tarquelne]

I find it boring that every MP game I play you can count on the opponent to ALWAYS select Panthers if possible.

I'd like to see Variable Rarity return.

What I'd do sometimes in CMx1 was play QBs using Variable Rarity, and with the house rule allowing only units without an increased rarity cost. In a rough way it made the units in QBs about as rare as CM's OOB would have them, but without a cost penalty.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Panthers and tigers are huge game killer. Every sensible player purchases them, which in turn forces the allied player to chooce the British with Fireflies. The basic problem is that the German army stuff is high quality enough to force the allied player to adapt. Triple the price of the Tigers and Panthers and we will have more balanced battless.

Triple may be overkill, but it is odd to me that high-end German armor is relatively cheaper in CMx2 than it was in CMx1.

CMBB Pz IV H: ___ 134 pts

CMBB Panther: ___ 238 pts 78% more than Pz IV

CMBB Jadgpanther: 250 pts 87% more than Pz IV

CMBB Tiger I: ____ 212 pts 58% more than Pz IV

CMBN Pz IV H: ___ 248 pts

CMBN Panther: ___ 360 pts 45% more than Pz IV

CMBN Jadgpanther: 382 pts 54% more than Pz IV

CMBN Tiger I: ____ 372 pts 50% more than Pz IV

Tiger I is actually not a major problem since it can be dealt with by US 76mm without requiring HVAP ammo.

I personally don't understand the ruckus related to US rockets. Nobody really bother with rockets because the rarity points are needed to counter german heavy panzers (M10 tank destroyes). That is if you even play with US forces. German heavy rocket artillery has considerable bigger impact on the game. Not only are they effective the german player can always not buy big cats since he knows that the allied player can buy nothing cheaper german armors (or even panzerschrecks) coud not kill.

On strict rarity a M10 with HVAP costs 3328 rarity points, so you are probably only getting 1 no matter what By comparison, a battery of T27E2 US rockets only cost 616 rarity points.

But it's not really about the rockets. It's the principle of the matter.

[JonS]

So, it's almost two years later. Has there been any progress on an out-of-band QB purchasing solution, such as a spot-market 'stock exchange'? Or even any "Short 75" style rules?

[Vanir Ausf B]

So, it's almost two years later. Has there been any progress on an out-of-band QB purchasing solution, such as a spot-market 'stock exchange'? Or even any "Short 75" style rules?

The Short 75 rules still work fine. I don't know how prevalent their usage is these days, but there is no reason they shouldn't be used.

There was the recent attempt get a QB style tournament going with extensive purchase rules. But it never took off and I think that may have been because there were way too many rules. That purchase system, as well as the one proposed at the Blitz, rely on limiting the number of "high end" armor one can buy. This is better than nothing, but the problem is that allowing even 1 of something will still incentivize the opponent to take the best counter to that 1 something. This leads to the US Army effectively disappearing from QBs as every Allied player picks UK for access to 17 pdr APDS to answer that 1 Panther they assume will appear.

I personally prefer a sort-of hybrid of the "Short 75" and "Panther 76" rules than ban the following armored vehicles:

Panther

Jagdpanther

JPz IV late (mid and early are allowed)

King Tiger

Churchill VII and VIII

It pains me to ban a fairly common tank like the Panther, but I don't see any way around it if you want to play US and not feel handicapped. It also doesn't help that, as I noted on the previous page, BFC has lowered the price of high-end German armor compared to the CMx1 games.

Sherman 76

CMBB: 149 pts

CMBN: 257 pts

Panther A mid

CMBB: 234 pts 57% higher than Sherman

CMBN: 352 pts 37% higher than Sherman

It's possible this has something to do with the off-road performance of Panthers being much worse than in CMx1. This is unfortunate since not only does it lower their price, but it is highly a-historical.

poesel71's idea of making the German player buy 10 foxholes (50 pts) for each is interesting. At 402 pts the Panther is 56% higher in price than the Sherman 76, so essentially back to CMx1 levels. Would that be enough to make the German player think twice? If it were me I would still buy them, knowing that they are underpriced to begin with. You would have to add 100pts (20 foxholes) before I seriously reconsidered. And having to buy foxholes is not as much of a penalty when on defense.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'd like to see Variable Rarity return.

What I'd do sometimes in CMx1 was play QBs using Variable Rarity, and with the house rule allowing only units without an increased rarity cost. In a rough way it made the units in QBs about as rare as CM's OOB would have them, but without a cost penalty.

Back in the day before CMBB was released I begged for the rarity system to be not based on points, which tends to allow everything but in smaller numbers, but would randomly not allowed units to be purchased at all based on their rarity. So I like your idea. The only issue is that it is completely honor-based.

[poesel]

poesel71's idea of making the German player buy 10 foxholes (50 pts) for each is interesting. At 402 pts the Panther is 56% higher in price than the Sherman 76, so essentially back to CMx1 levels. Would that be enough to make the German player think twice? If it were me I would still buy them, knowing that they are underpriced to begin with. You would have to add 100pts (20 foxholes) before I seriously reconsidered. And having to buy foxholes is not as much of a penalty when on defense.

Umm, not exactly what I meant.

First there has to be an agreement about which units are under priced. Let's say the Panther is 35 points too cheap for example. Then the player who buys a Panther buys 7 foxholes (or three trenches and a foxhole) to offset the tank. These assets then have to be placed in an absolutely unusable place (e.g map edge) so they can't take any part in the game.

The interesting part is a) to compile a list and to agree on it.

I would take a bet on a) but not on

[Vanir Ausf B]

Is far as I can tell foxholes in QBs cannot be purchased individually, only in groups of 10 for 50pts.

[poesel]

Yes, you can only buy ten but you can delete them separately afterwards.

[Tarquelne]

"If the map is such that you want Big Cats, you can't have them." seems like an easy-to-remember rule. And one I've used. And it can be very fun to watch an opponent's few Fireflies cope with a wave of Marders.

But I'd rather work with my opponent some and make sure the situation - via the map, point adjustment, time limit, or something else, allows Panthers without having them dominate.

As much as I like QBs, I'm more and more inclined to treat them more like custom scenarios than true QBs. I don't know if CMx1 left me sort of QB-ed out, or if with CMx2 its much easier to inadvertently create poor matches.

Back in the day before CMBB was released I begged for the rarity system to be not based on points ... but would randomly not allowed units to be purchased at all based on their rarity.

Heh. I remember requesting it too, though I don't know when.

And I didn't beg.

The only issue is that it is completely honor-based.

Yeah. IIRC I only used it in LAN games.

[Pak40]

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.

How many points did you pay for the 3 pound hammer? I'm pretty sure a 2 pound hammer would have had a better price and you still would have bashed your hand just as badly... unless you had the rarity turned on, of course.

[Vanir Ausf B]

"If the map is such that you want Big Cats, you can't have them." seems like an easy-to-remember rule. And one I've used. And it can be very fun to watch an opponent's few Fireflies cope with a wave of Marders.

But I'd rather work with my opponent some and make sure the situation - via the map, point adjustment, time limit, or something else, allows Panthers without having them dominate.

I like this idea. I have a list of scenario maps that I want to convert to QB maps. Huzzar!, for example, would be a good map to allow big cats. This could be combined with poesel71's foxholes in negotiations. You could also change the price of things based on nationality of the opposition. For example, Big Cats are more effective vs US than UK because of the 17 pdr. You could say on Huzzar! vs UK they are regular price, but if the allied player picks US they are +50 pts (or whatever value you decide on). On a more open map maybe they are +50 vs UK, + 100 vs US. Lots of possibilities. The only hard part may be finding a reasonable opponent.

Heh. I remember requesting it too, though I don't know when.

And I didn't beg.

Maybe that's why we didn't get it

[Sgt Schultz]

I have found that the "Big Cat" issues can be diluted by turning rarity on, playing larger battles, and adding a simple agreement.

No more than one 88mm L/71 OR 88mm L/56 OR two 75 L/71 in either a "Large' or "Huge" battle.

One KT or JagdPanther

OR

One Tiger1

OR

Two Panther

----

AND/OR you can add a simple caveat to armor purchasing.

* NO Big Cat HQs. *

They HAVE to be independent(expensive) add-ons to existing armor platoons. You make all HQs PzIV(H) and there ain't much left for extra Kitties.

I have yet to have a King Tiger make it through a battle. Mine seem to have a shot trap somewhere. They are slow, clunky and expensive. My JagdPanthers are wonderful, but ammo-limited and can be flanked easily enough. Panthers are the be-all end-all of CM2 armor to date for all-around capability, so I try to keep the numbers down.

In a Large or Huge battle you have enough Allied points to buy smoke mortars, 76mm Shermans, bazooka teams, etc. Every damn Ami hannomag has a bazooka and 4 rounds, and there are Jeeps that have TWELVE rounds waiting to be acquired. German Hannomags have a single Panzerfaust 30.

I feel that going toe-to-toe with any of the Big Cats at any range in any of the present Allied armor is more or less an effort in futility, other than the lucky shot/mismatched LOS. So it doesn't matter to me so much that the points do not "match" every metric.

One may want to consider using all the toys(speed of both vehicles and turrets comes to mind) and superior numbers of other assets available to the Allies, coupled with a few simple tactics, to negate the Kitties.

I play with them so much I have found a lot of counters to them in case someone uses them against me.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I have found that the "Big Cat" issues can be diluted by turning rarity on, playing larger battles, and adding a simple agreement.

That is interesting, as I have no desire to play a QB smaller than Large.

Rarity can cut both ways, though. The rarity for M10s with HVAP is brutal, while Panthers are mostly unaffected by rarity. I'm undecided on that subject.

Panthers are the be-all end-all of CM2 armor to date for all-around capability, so I try to keep the numbers down.

So then why do you allow two Panthers but only one Tiger I?

[Sgt Schultz]

I would allow all the Tigers one would want to bring. I was more or less speaking to what I bring to keep my opponents happy, and as possible guidelines for others who may have issues with possible large numbers of the Big Cats.

I don't like CM2 Tigers or KTs as much as I thought I would, so I don't mind "limiting" myself more there. The center-of-mass aiming seems to find nooks and crannies on my Tigers that glance off the Panther glacis. My KTs seem to have a turret ring weakness or something, because I have lost two almost instantly to weird penetrations in the upper front area. Plus, the 88mm(especially the long KT) IS a clearly superior weapon if it can be deployed properly and with a little luck, or compliance on the enemy's part.

The Kitties are more challenging targets that take a coherent combination of weapons to negate, but they can be taken out by less points than they cost in a reliable fashion.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I would think that playing with weather set to Random may also make people think twice about spending a lot of points on pricey tanks.

[slysniper]

Why is it you all get all worked up about the pricing of units, like there would ever be a system that could somehow compute the perfect even match up with two different armies. Every system will likely have a flaw, and one side will have a purchasing advantage.

I do not see why so many players will not just play red on red or blue on blue. Such a simple answer, so fair. But no, we cannot do that, that is not right, we need to play opposing armies in a meeting engagement. Like that has much to do with reality either.

Anyway, I did like the concept that rarity would mean that if you choose that side, the rare units might or miight not be available.. If big cates only showed up in 15 % of the battles, that might change things somewhat would'nt it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Why is it you all get all worked up about the pricing of units, like there would ever be a system that could somehow compute the perfect even match up with two different armies. Every system will likely have a flaw, and one side will have a purchasing advantage.

So why have unit prices at all?

If something is worth doing it is worth doing well, and the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. The CMx1 QB points system was modified quite a lot by BFC. They never got it perfect, but it did improve and we appreciated that.

I do not see why so many players will not just play red on red or blue on blue. Such a simple answer, so fair. But no, we cannot do that, that is not right, we need to play opposing armies in a meeting engagement. Like that has much to do with reality either.

For me much of the appeal of historical wargames is pitting the national characteristics and doctrine of different combatants against each other.

I'm not sure what meeting engagements have to do with the discussion, as if that were a unique characteristic of QBs. I've played quite a few canned scenarios that were meeting engagements (Cats Chasing Dogs, Huzzar, ect). You can play attack/defend in QBs just as easily.

Anyway, I did like the concept that rarity would mean that if you choose that side, the rare units might or miight not be available.. If big cates only showed up in 15 % of the battles, that might change things somewhat would'nt it.

It's always been a mystery to me why BFC does not do this. That is how rarity actually worked in the war, i.e. rare units were infrequently encountered at all but when they were they were most often encountered in platoon strength at least.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I have found that the "Big Cat" issues can be diluted by turning rarity on, playing larger battles, and adding a simple agreement.

No more than one 88mm L/71 OR 88mm L/56 OR two 75 L/71 in either a "Large' or "Huge" battle.

One KT or JagdPanther

OR

One Tiger1

OR

Two Panther

I neglected to ask: using these guild lines do you and your opponents often use US forces, or is it pretty much all British all the time?

[Georgie]

Anyway, I did like the concept that rarity would mean that if you choose that side, the rare units might or miight not be available.. If big cates only showed up in 15 % of the battles, that might change things somewhat would'nt it.

Good idea, "the luck of the draw", it would add a little spice to the game and be more realistic.

[slysniper]

So why have unit prices at all?

If something is worth doing it is worth doing well, and the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. The CMx1 QB points system was modified quite a lot by BFC. They never got it perfect, but it did improve and we appreciated that.

For me much of the appeal of historical wargames is pitting the national characteristics and doctrine of different combatants against each other.

I understand, and agree that if you have it, at least make it as good as you can.

But BFC has made the statement that when they adjusted the points in CMX1,

that it never solved the issues, there was always somepart of the group that was not happy with them and that it was a never ending debate, thus they were not going down that path again. Thus there will be no point adjustments to the system they have come up with unless there is a error or basic concept flaw

But I still like the concept of the rarity factor being used to a random availability instead of the present concept.

As to my statement about meeting engagements and QB's, it was just pointing out that is what is played the most but in general is the least realistic. So statements about wanting to be realistic dont fit well when we turn around and play them things. I just love to pick on them, to me they are the most boring battles because of the lack of tactics within them in general.

[Vanir Ausf B]

But BFC has made the statement that when they adjusted the points in CMX1, that it never solved the issues, there was always somepart of the group that was not happy with them and that it was a never ending debate, thus they were not going down that path again. Thus there will be no point adjustments to the system they have come up with unless there is a error or basic concept flaw.

Yes, I am familiar with the "if we can't make everyone happy with it, it isn't worth our time" argument. It's a good thing they don't have the same attitude towards all other aspects of the game, for example, machine gun performance. BFC knows full well, better than most in fact, that nothing they do will ever satisfy everyone. That isn't a good reason not to try to improve things. It's an excuse to throw out because it sounds better than saying they don't really care about the feature and don't want to be bothered with it any more than they absolutely have to to get people who like QBs to buy the game; which I think is the truth of the matter.

It's been a while, but my memory is that there were 3 weapons or classes of weapons in CMx1 that spawned a lot of QB price controversy: Puppchen, infantry automatic weapons and Stugs (and to some extent all German turretless TDs). BFC doubled the QB price of Puppchen in a CMBO patch. Did some people think they were still too cheap? Yes. Did everyone nevertheless agree that it was a significant improvement? Yes.

The price of infantry automatic weapons was bumped up in CMBB. People still debated their usefulness, but "SMG squads" ceased to be viewed as a choice only for gamey players. Again, significant improvement.

Stugs never did get fixed in CMx1. Ironically they have been fixed in CMx2. Maybe even a little over fixed.

QB Price Relative to Sherman 76 (149 pts in CMBB, 257 in CMBN)

CMBB

Stug III G late: 76%

JPz IV late: __ Equal

Jadgpanther: _ 168%

CMBN

Stug III G late: 115% -- 161% increase over CMBB :eek:

JPz IV late: ___ 127% -- 120% increase over CMBB

Jadgpanther: __ 149% -- 53% increase over CMBB :confused:

Well, it's easy to see why no one complains about Stugs being too cheap any more. Does any one ever buy them? They should not be more expensive than a Sherman 76, which is a better vehicle in almost every way except for its high profile. I would give them the same 120% increase over CMBB the JPz IV got, putting it at 249 pts. That is the same as a Pz IV tank, which sounds reasonable to me. Pz IV has a turret, but Stug has mildly better frontal armor.

The real head scratcher is the Jadgpanther. I mean seriously, WTF? Not only was it spared the big price increase given to every other turretless TD in the game, it actually got a price cut relative to other units. This is the type of obvious imbalance that needs to be corrected. If we set it equal to 168% of the price of a Sherman 76, same as CMBB, it would cost 432 points, up from its current 382. Exactly the price of 10 foxholes.

But for all of my complaining, there are not a large number of things wrong with QB pricing in CMBN. Off the top of my head:

US Rockets: Just apply whatever criteria you used for German rocket prices. I'm not sure what that would come out to, but to explain away the nearly order of magnitude difference in price between them as a reasonable difference of opinion in capability borders on insulting.

Stug: Need to come down at bit to where they are comparable to Pz IV (249 pts). See above.

Jadgpanther: Increase from 382 to 432 points.

Panther A late: Increase from 360 to 411 points (160% of a Sherman 76 in CMBB). Again, conveniently the cost of 10 foxholes.

It could be argued that Panther and Jadgpanther should be slightly less expensive in CMBN compared to CMx1 since their off-road performance is unrealistically crappy in this game. So maybe 420 and 400 respectively, but only if you are playing with random weather.

King Tiger: Not sure. The production KT was 226% the cost of a Sherman 76 in CMBB (which would translate to 580 points in CMBN :eek:), but the "Porsche" turret version in CMBN was not in CMx1 (IIRC). It is only 159% the cost of a Sherman 76 in CMBN. The same comparison to the Jadgpanther could be made here as was made between the Stug and Pz IV: same gun, Jadg has a little better armor, KT has the turret. The KT should cost about the same or slightly higher, so somewhere between 430-440 points (they are presently 407).

So there. I've done all the work. If someone at BFC could just take 10 minutes to plug them in that would be great

As to my statement about meeting engagements and QB's, it was just pointing out that is what is played the most but in general is the least realistic. So statements about wanting to be realistic dont fit well when we turn around and play them things. I just love to pick on them, to me they are the most boring battles because of the lack of tactics within them in general.

I prefer attack/defend myself, but an occasional ME can be fun. It depends on the map.

[Paulverisor64]

I can understand the justification for pricing the way that it is, but as noted above some of the relative values don't seem to add up.

Just out of curiousity; has there ever been a study made with the actual manufacturing costs in comparison with QB point values? Perhaps the harder to manufacture tanks should demand a higher QB point value.