StuGs

[Titan]

. I don't consider the MkIV worth the points and try my best to avoid it. At best, I consider it roughly equal to a standard Sherman.

Put it this way, A MK4 tank is worth the same as the equivalent Sherman...then start buying your infantry...the German force would be way more capable and potent than the allied force MK4 vs Sherman then add in the German shecks and Fausts. Allies would have there hands full everytime. What compensates is allied numbers because they are cheaper

 

[Lethaface]

IIRC the points are calculated automatically based of a number of factors, for tanks the most important being the gun and the armour thickness (while rarity is how 'common' the unit was for the army in question at the given time).

This system gives us the numbers we see, being generated they aren't optimal for every unit from a competitive play perspective. The Stug's don't come off very well out of this equation (probably because they have thicker armour than PzIV) and one can wonder whether having a turret vs a casemate is valued at all/minor in the QB point system. If not, perhaps vehicles without one could get a discount?

I don't think there are many people here or at BFC disagreeing that the QB points aren't ideal. However BFC have stated in the past that they won't go into finetuning QB points based of relative performance between two units (so whether the Pz IV beats the M4 75 in a straight up duel isn't relevant for how the points are being calculated). BFC does seem to make a very limited number of changes at times. So the chances of BFC tweaking points are rather slim, imo; unless it can be made very clear that there is a glaring issue (like the old rocket artillery).

I personally think that Stugs are a great asset if you have a battlefield need for a mobile AT asset with decent armour protection that is supposed to defend keyhole positions with long range of fire. Marders have the gun but not the protection. Although agree that in a QB with limited points Stugs aren't that good of a choice points/value (hello Panther/Pz IV).
I wonder how does it compare to a Hetzer or Jagdpanzer IV points wise?

For offensive / breakthrough action obviously a moving turret and more MGs is almost always preferable to the Stug casemate.

If we hope to see BFC make some changes to the point system I think it is imperative to first accept how they distribute the points; they won't finetune tank X or Y a couple of points up or down because it can beat tank Z with probability A. However if there is to be made a case that having a turret vs a casemate isn't reflected in points, perhaps they could do something about that across the board. This would however probably affect ALL tanks with/without the turret, so might lead to other point distributions being off the scale. From what I understood exactly that is the reason that since CMx2 they won't finetune the points anymore, because they feel it would be a story without an ending (my paraphrase, and while I would like QB points to be finetuned more regularly I understand their reasons for not doing this).

 

[Bulletpoint]

Hmmm I can see the point about balancing gameplay between Allied quantity and Axis quality. But I think a spanner was thrown in the works with the addition of (very cheap) Fireflies. They basically shut down the German advantage. While the German MGs and Shrecks are somewhat better than the allied counterparts, it's rare that this small advantage translates into winning or losing a game.

@Lethaface I'm under no illusions that BFC is interested in looking at these things, but I find it worth discussing anyway.

 

[Titan]

IIRC the points are calculated automatically based of a number of factors, for tanks the most important being the gun and the armour thickness (while rarity is how 'common' the unit was for the army in question at the given time).

This system gives us the numbers we see, being generated they aren't optimal for every unit from a competitive play perspective. The Stug's don't come off very well out of this equation (probably because they have thicker armour than PzIV) and one can wonder whether having a turret vs a casemate is valued at all/minor in the QB point system. If not, perhaps vehicles without one could get a discount?

I don't think there are many people here or at BFC disagreeing that the QB points aren't ideal. However BFC have stated in the past that they won't go into finetuning QB points based of relative performance between two units (so whether the Pz IV beats the M4 75 in a straight up duel isn't relevant for how the points are being calculated). BFC does seem to make a very limited number of changes at times. So the chances of BFC tweaking points are rather slim, imo; unless it can be made very clear that there is a glaring issue (like the old rocket artillery).

I personally think that Stugs are a great asset if you have a battlefield need for a mobile AT asset with decent armour protection that is supposed to defend keyhole positions with long range of fire. Marders have the gun but not the protection. Although agree that in a QB with limited points Stugs aren't that good of a choice points/value (hello Panther/Pz IV).
I wonder how does it compare to a Hetzer or Jagdpanzer IV points wise?

For offensive / breakthrough action obviously a moving turret and more MGs is almost always preferable to the Stug casemate.

If we hope to see BFC make some changes to the point system I think it is imperative to first accept how they distribute the points; they won't finetune tank X or Y a couple of points up or down because it can beat tank Z with probability A. However if there is to be made a case that having a turret vs a casemate isn't reflected in points, perhaps they could do something about that across the board. This would however probably affect ALL tanks with/without the turret, so might lead to other point distributions being off the scale. From what I understood exactly that is the reason that since CMx2 they won't finetune the points anymore, because they feel it would be a story without an ending (my paraphrase, and while I would like QB points to be finetuned more regularly I understand their reasons for not doing this).

Nicely put..Considering they have only patched the game once in the last 2-4 years i dont hold much hope..but Casemate armour vs Turret cerainly needs to be looked at..as you said they dont wont to affect the balance...I personally dont think it will cause right now we got a whole bunch of tanks that are in the game but are simply redundant unless in a scenario cause people just dont buy them. You can almost count on a german player having panthers. Be nice to get some suprises time to time like a Jagdpanther or hetzer which againt is not worth buying..in fact the hetzer was at TD they could produce very quickly so should be cheap not 300 plus

 

[Lethaface]

Hmmm I can see the point about balancing gameplay between Allied quantity and Axis quality. But I think a spanner was thrown in the works with the addition of (very cheap) Fireflies. They basically shut down the German advantage. While the German MGs and Shrecks are somewhat better than the allied counterparts, it's rare that this small advantage translates into winning or losing a game.

@Lethaface I'm under no illusions that BFC is interested in looking at these things, but I find it worth discussing anyway.

I sometimes think that the chances of an actual change which might benefit Stugs for example, are lowered because the discussion goes all over the place and into details like "specific vehicle X can beat Y at usual ranges with high probability, so it needs to be changed" because than suddenly half of the board disagrees.

While something simple like 'having a casemate vs a turret is currently not reflected in QB pricing and thus short changes all vehicles with a casemate in QBs', where it be true, might have quite a decent chance of being picked up. Now I don't know if all casemate vehicles suffer from this. But if that's the case I'd expect it to be at least have a chance to make the cut.

--
Overall I think that @Titan makes a fair point that comparing units between sides doesn't always add up, due to things like fausts/Schrecks. In general I personally don't feel that much of a advantage for one side or the other.

Personally I'd say the capability for US infantry to split of a scout team and still be able to split a squad in two teams is a big pro for US infantry. IIRC US infantry also has more radio's in a infantry company, which is another big pro.

 

[Lethaface]

Nicely put..Considering they have only patched the game once in the last 2-4 years i dont hold much hope..but Casemate armour vs Turret cerainly needs to be looked at..as you said they dont wont to affect the balance...I personally dont think it will cause right now we got a whole bunch of tanks that are in the game but are simply redundant unless in a scenario cause people just dont buy them. You can almost count on a german player having panthers. Be nice to get some suprises time to time like a Jagdpanther or hetzer which againt is not worth buying..in fact the hetzer was at TD they could produce very quickly so should be cheap not 300 plus

Yeah I agree that the variety one usually sees in QBs is very limited. Panthers are almost a given, etc. Although one way to change that up a bit is to go for loose rarity.

I also would like to see more Hetzers etc. One thing to keep in mind is however that a Hetzer is quite well protected from the front. It can bounce 75mm / 37mm shots all day (even 76mm struggles against it), while the mantlet is also much better protected. So if a Hetzer is suddenly a similar price like a Pz IV / Sherman, we will probably see many people complaining about that.

I'd be fine with that, if that's the outcome of a discount for casemate / premium for turrets. Although I think that the production costs / numbers should be reflected in the rarity, not in the points cost.

 

[holoween]

Better infantry weapons, better tanks and a good model line-up. The fact that there stuff is more expensive balances it out plus makes it more historical because that was actually the case in real life...that’s why I am ok with the cost of MK4 etc.


When I say German stuff is better, Germany is more capable of taking out allied armour without its own armour more so than the allies. The fact most German Squads carry inherent pausts, and the Panzerschrecks have no equal....the Bazooka or piat teams are no where near as good.

At least in comparison to the us the infantry weapons arent much better when looked at for a whole squad. The lmg42 is great but ingame other lmgs get close and the americans get full semi automatic rifles so in a longer fight they usually do better since they are far more capable of keeping firepower after some casualties.
Also the german infantry pays a lot for having a few panzerfausts so if allied tanks get cheaper because of it then that would mean the germans get punished twice for having these weapons.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I think that German weapons should just be priced according to their capabilities. Shrecks are good, but they are also considerably more expensive than bazookas. You get what you pay for.

And I'm not sure having a turret is any big advantage in this game. Yes, a turret turns faster than a vehicle, but if you want to flank a Sherman with a StuG, you can - just add one or two extra waypoints to drive into position facing the Sherman instead of waiting for the StuG to pivot.

 

[Lethaface]

And I'm not sure having a turret is any big advantage in this game. Yes, a turret turns faster than a vehicle, but if you want to flank a Sherman with a StuG, you can - just add one or two extra waypoints to drive into position facing the Sherman instead of waiting for the StuG to pivot.

What is 'big'? I'd say there should be points allocated for having a turret vs a casemate, but how much? 50points? 100points? a percentage 10%-20% premium/discount?

It's all arbitrary.

Your example is true in 'real life' as well, Stugs could just pivot with their tracks. Still a turret is definitely an advantage. I'm sure you can think of the reasons why that is ;-).

 

[Larsen]

From what I understand the production cost, how many of each tank each side had and so on is priced in rarity points. In fact you can turn the rarity off completely. Some people want to play the QBs with formations that were most common during WWII some just want ot assemble a force out of available units and see how that works. Both approaches are actually fun.
My problem with pricing is that the basic Sherman costs 175 points when purchased in a formation (everything is regular), Pz IV 222 and StuG about 275. And that the way I see it does not reflect their in field capabilities. both Pz IV and StuG are overpriced compared to Sherman. And the basic StuGs - very rudimentary MG, no turret, limited HE capacity, 4 person crew (worse spotting). They should be much cheaper. And for Pz IV I think they should be priced similar to Shermans, those are very similar tanks in what they can do in the battlefield.
As far as infarntry goes I think US has an advantage - semiautomatic garant, cheap 60mm mortars, cheap bazookas (yes, they are worse than panzerchecks and you an have more of them). Once the gunner of an LMG gets hit German squads loose almost all their firepower while for the US they still are quite powerful.

 

[Lethaface]

From what I understand the production cost, how many of each tank each side had and so on is priced in rarity points. In fact you can turn the rarity off completely. Some people want to play the QBs with formations that were most common during WWII some just want ot assemble a force out of available units and see how that works. Both approaches are actually fun.
My problem with pricing is that the basic Sherman costs 175 points when purchased in a formation (everything is regular), Pz IV 222 and StuG about 275. And that the way I see it does not reflect their in field capabilities. both Pz IV and StuG are overpriced compared to Sherman. And the basic StuGs - very rudimentary MG, no turret, limited HE capacity, 4 person crew (worse spotting). They should be much cheaper. And for Pz IV I think they should be priced similar to Shermans, those are very similar tanks in what they can do in the battlefield.
As far as infarntry goes I think US has an advantage - semiautomatic garant, cheap 60mm mortars, cheap bazookas (yes, they are worse than panzerchecks and you an have more of them). Once the gunner of an LMG gets hit German squads loose almost all their firepower while for the US they still are quite powerful.

Agreed on the Stugs; while are better armored than Pz IVs they also have drawbacks which don't seem to be calculated into the cost. For the Sherman vs Pz IV, I personally don't see a real issue. The 75mm KwK 40 L/48 is valued higher than the Sherman 75mm, which seems reasonable.

I had a quick look at CMFB, january 1945, all Regular, normal motivation, fit, +0 leadership, single vehicles:

There are M4 Sherman available at 199 points available (single vehicle), the M4 & the M4A1. However both come with a hefty rarity charge (1600). The Sherman available with 0 rarity points is the M4A3(75)W, which cost 232 points as a single vehicle purchase. If you go for a 76mm with the least amount of rarity, that goes up to 258 points for a M4A3(76)W at 200 something rarity.

Comparing that to a PzIV J with 0 rarity points: 246 points. The Pz IV H is 248 points, but comes with 744 rarity. The Panther VG mid costs 365 points, 0 rarity. A Marder IIIM costs 126points with 333 rarity. A Hetzer cost 282 points (with 267 rarity), Stug IIIG (latest) costs 303 points with 0 rarity. And finally for comparison sake a JagdPz IV cost around 320-330 points, with rarity between 1000-2500. The JPz IV 70 (V) costs 362 points, with 1086 rarity.

I can't remember exactly the differences between the most basic Sherman and the M4A3(75)W, but IIRC it has better armor, optics, mobility and of course the wet storage.

So, at least for CMFB I don't really see that much of a difference. The most basic Sherman is indeed some 50points cheaper than a PzIV. But the more regular Sherman is only 14 points cheaper than a PzIV J.

For CMBN I had a quick check and noticed the M4 & M4A1 still have some rarity there (~200). So in CMBN you can get a M4A1 (cheaper than M4) for 190 points, at 175 rarity. The M4A3(75)W is still 232 points with 0 rarity for the early and mid variants. The Pz IV H late comes at 248 points, 0 rarity while the cheapest IV is the Pz IV J early, 241 points at 0 rarity. So in CMBN there is a bit more difference between the cheapest Sherman and the rarity is less of an impact.

---
All in all this shows for at least these settings and in CMFB, that the points difference between PzIV and Shermans aren't that big. Especially with rarity strict/loose, the Sherman you can expect to see (M4A3(75)W) is the one costing 232 points. While the 76mm Sherman is more expensive than the PzIV, although not by much. With loose/none rarity (and CMBN in generall, although not as much), the chances are indeed bigger that you will encounter more 'cheap' Shermans. But also other toys, like JagdPanthers
One could also argue that the price difference between the Sherman M4A1 and the M4A3 is too big for the actual upgrades it gets and that the basic M4A1 should cost ~20 points whatever more. But that's probably debatable.

The only real issue I see is that the turret-less vehicles don't seem to be cheaper than the turreted vehicles. For example a hellcat costs about 150point, while a Marder has a similar price point. A JagdPz IV 70 (V) isn't cheaper compared to a Panther. Worst off from this list is probably the Stug, I reckon that is because it has quite decent side armor which are also valued poitns. So it is even more expensive than a Hetzer, although not by much.

So as a suggestion for people wanting to see more variety, I'd advise the loose rarity setting. I will surely try to negotiate such settings next time I play a QB.

And if someone has the energy to create another discussion at BFC forum, with proper arguments that turreted vehicles should come at a premium over turretless vehicles: go ahead . I might do it myself one day, but probably not before Syrian forces in CMSF2 will get RPG ammo in QBs. Right now they get like 1 round per squad, negating their only(?) strong point. I guess we all have our petpeeves. ;-)

 

[A Canadian Cat]

Well that went round and round and propagated several shall we say interesting theories. Here are the facts as I know them from years of forum discussion both in public and in the beta forum. I am certain all of this is public knowledge but I haven't sourced the public statements.

Rarity is supposed to represent how common equipment is in the various armies TO&E for a given location and a given time frame. That is all it is. It is not really meant for or used for game play balance. If you want a force mix that is somewhat historically accurate the Rarity is there for you to get that. If you don't care about that then set the Rarity to none and go nuts and have fun.

The points cost for each piece of equipment is meant to represent it's combat power and nothing else. It is chosen by Steve and Charles with some input form testers. They try to make a reasonable assessment about how much better gun A is than gun B etc. Points are for game play balance. That is what they are meant for and what the represent. BFC's stated policy is to never change those values. Ever. Period. With the exception of when there is a bug - like they meant something to be worth 65 points but it ended up shipping as 35 (not a real example just made up numbers to illustrate).

I don't think Steve has publicly stated the reason for the "no changing values policy", and I don't really know, but I think we can all guess that he has little interest in engaging in debates about how such and such should be cheaper or more expensive and on and on and on. The fact is that even if the values are not perfect they serve their purpose and do a really good job overall. There are so many things that govern the outcome of a QB and points values are really low on the list even though we wold prefer that our own tactical competence not be at the top - honestly it is. I cannot count the number of times I have made a decision and then regretted it. That's on me. I have also bought too much artillery, or tanks for infantry and not have enough infantry or enough tanks for how the game played out. Those are not points problems those are me problems.

 

[Larsen]

I certainly agree that at the end the outcome of the battle is the result of our decisions. Let's separate them into in game decision and purchase decisions. those are quite different. In CM1 artillery, armor adn infantry all had separate caps for QBs. As a result the battles were more balanced in the sense that the resulting force for both sides had somewhat similar composition and it worked quite well. That is gone in CM2. On the other side now we can look at the map before purchasing units and purchase units based on what we decide to do strategically. The unit value is a part of this stage. Let's forget about rarity. That is there to let usplay the game with somewhat historically accurate units. On the specific unit cost as I understand for armor there is some kind of a formula that evaluates gun, armor, turret, ammo load, spotting abilities, chance to bog etc. The formula tends to work relatively well except for a few but very important cases. StuG is the prime example of one. The way ti is priced right now it is priced out of QBs. Paraphrasing Canadian Cat i am sure those who purchase StuGs in QBs regret it most of the time later on. Another one is teh price of sherman vs the price of Pz IV. I just don't get it why Sherman is about 40 points cheaper. Better gun? Well, yeah, a bit. But then how much that difference really matter given the typical LOS distances in QBs? Less HE load, worse spotting, worse armor. Again the way I see it those two tanks should be priced equally. And StuGs probably should be priced in the same range especially once the US and the UK gets Fireflies and 76mm guns. For sure StuGs should be cheaper than any of those vehicles.

 

[Lethaface]

Well that went round and round and propagated several shall we say interesting theories. Here are the facts as I know them from years of forum discussion both in public and in the beta forum. I am certain all of this is public knowledge but I haven't sourced the public statements.

Rarity is supposed to represent how common equipment is in the various armies TO&E for a given location and a given time frame. That is all it is. It is not really meant for or used for game play balance. If you want a force mix that is somewhat historically accurate the Rarity is there for you to get that. If you don't care about that then set the Rarity to none and go nuts and have fun.

The points cost for each piece of equipment is meant to represent it's combat power and nothing else. It is chosen by Steve and Charles with some input form testers. They try to make a reasonable assessment about how much better gun A is than gun B etc. Points are for game play balance. That is what they are meant for and what the represent. BFC's stated policy is to never change those values. Ever. Period. With the exception of when there is a bug - like they meant something to be worth 65 points but it ended up shipping as 35 (not a real example just made up numbers to illustrate).

I don't think Steve has publicly stated the reason for the "no changing values policy", and I don't really know, but I think we can all guess that he has little interest in engaging in debates about how such and such should be cheaper or more expensive and on and on and on. The fact is that even if the values are not perfect they serve their purpose and do a really good job overall. There are so many things that govern the outcome of a QB and points values are really low on the list even though we wold prefer that our own tactical competence not be at the top - honestly it is. I cannot count the number of times I have made a decision and then regretted it. That's on me. I have also bought too much artillery, or tanks for infantry and not have enough infantry or enough tanks for how the game played out. Those are not points problems those are me problems.

I guess the discussion is about a couple of different things.

A* Combat value tuning of Sherman (and other tanks)
B* The perceived lack of variety in QBs, which is reasoned might be due to the optimum point/value being Panthers etc
C* Whether or not there might be an issue regarding vehicles with casemates vs vehicles with turrets

Personally I don't see much issue with A.
For B I'm probably also guilty, as due to the law of opportunity costs I'll always go for that 0 rarity Panther/Pz IV AND take that mobile AA / artillery, instead of getting a Jpz 70 which costs about the same as the Panther but eating up rarity by itself. Given that we are probably all interested in historical accuracy the usual rarity setting I play is strict. That is indeed a player choice.
For C, there seems to at least be no value accounted in the having of a turret. Whether or not that is by design I don't know, but it does also explain part of the reason why turretless vehicles aren't that popular in QBs. It's not that those are bad vehicles imo, but I do agree that for the same points I'd rather have myself a turret. There is also, at least imo, combat value in being able to shoot (and scoot) in every direction without having to turn the whole vehicle.

I think A & B have been discussed for years on the forum but can't remember whether C has also come up.

 

[Titan]

Agreed on the Stugs; while are better armored than Pz IVs they also have drawbacks which don't seem to be calculated into the cost. For the Sherman vs Pz IV, I personally don't see a real issue. The 75mm KwK 40 L/48 is valued higher than the Sherman 75mm, which seems reasonable.

I had a quick look at CMFB, january 1945, all Regular, normal motivation, fit, +0 leadership, single vehicles:

There are M4 Sherman available at 199 points available (single vehicle), the M4 & the M4A1. However both come with a hefty rarity charge (1600). The Sherman available with 0 rarity points is the M4A3(75)W, which cost 232 points as a single vehicle purchase. If you go for a 76mm with the least amount of rarity, that goes up to 258 points for a M4A3(76)W at 200 something rarity.

Comparing that to a PzIV J with 0 rarity points: 246 points. The Pz IV H is 248 points, but comes with 744 rarity. The Panther VG mid costs 365 points, 0 rarity. A Marder IIIM costs 126points with 333 rarity. A Hetzer cost 282 points (with 267 rarity), Stug IIIG (latest) costs 303 points with 0 rarity. And finally for comparison sake a JagdPz IV cost around 320-330 points, with rarity between 1000-2500. The JPz IV 70 (V) costs 362 points, with 1086 rarity.

I can't remember exactly the differences between the most basic Sherman and the M4A3(75)W, but IIRC it has better armor, optics, mobility and of course the wet storage.

So, at least for CMFB I don't really see that much of a difference. The most basic Sherman is indeed some 50points cheaper than a PzIV. But the more regular Sherman is only 14 points cheaper than a PzIV J.

For CMBN I had a quick check and noticed the M4 & M4A1 still have some rarity there (~200). So in CMBN you can get a M4A1 (cheaper than M4) for 190 points, at 175 rarity. The M4A3(75)W is still 232 points with 0 rarity for the early and mid variants. The Pz IV H late comes at 248 points, 0 rarity while the cheapest IV is the Pz IV J early, 241 points at 0 rarity. So in CMBN there is a bit more difference between the cheapest Sherman and the rarity is less of an impact.

---
All in all this shows for at least these settings and in CMFB, that the points difference between PzIV and Shermans aren't that big. Especially with rarity strict/loose, the Sherman you can expect to see (M4A3(75)W) is the one costing 232 points. While the 76mm Sherman is more expensive than the PzIV, although not by much. With loose/none rarity (and CMBN in generall, although not as much), the chances are indeed bigger that you will encounter more 'cheap' Shermans. But also other toys, like JagdPanthers
One could also argue that the price difference between the Sherman M4A1 and the M4A3 is too big for the actual upgrades it gets and that the basic M4A1 should cost ~20 points whatever more. But that's probably debatable.

The only real issue I see is that the turret-less vehicles don't seem to be cheaper than the turreted vehicles. For example a hellcat costs about 150point, while a Marder has a similar price point. A JagdPz IV 70 (V) isn't cheaper compared to a Panther. Worst off from this list is probably the Stug, I reckon that is because it has quite decent side armor which are also valued poitns. So it is even more expensive than a Hetzer, although not by much.

So as a suggestion for people wanting to see more variety, I'd advise the loose rarity setting. I will surely try to negotiate such settings next time I play a QB.

And if someone has the energy to create another discussion at BFC forum, with proper arguments that turreted vehicles should come at a premium over turretless vehicles: go ahead . I might do it myself one day, but probably not before Syrian forces in CMSF2 will get RPG ammo in QBs. Right now they get like 1 round per squad, negating their only(?) strong point. I guess we all have our petpeeves. ;-)

Then the next problem with loose rarity is still nobody will by the exotics...Instead of panthers you will be facing an army of tigers or KT11's

Just from my perspective i would like to try out different german vehicles..and sometimes in my games i do buy the occasional luxury item for the hell of it despite not being the ideal choice

 

[holoween]

Then the next problem with loose rarity is still nobody will by the exotics...Instead of panthers you will be facing an army of tigers or KT11's

That just tells you they are too cheap.

 

[Larsen]

Well, it depends on the ground conditions, weather and availability of roads on the map. With a dump or wet ground tigers become too unreliable. So do Shermans and PzIV and since they are much cheaper it makes more sense to go with them.
I agree that KT might be too cheap.

 

[Titan]

Well, it depends on the ground conditions, weather and availability of roads on the map. With a dump or wet ground tigers become too unreliable. So do Shermans and PzIV and since they are much cheaper it makes more sense to go with them.
I agree that KT might be too cheap.

Not when you take into account the rarity factor, not sure how often you buy them. I rarely do as they come at great sacrifice of other options

 

[drewshotsfan]

I can't recall the last time I used Stugs in a QB. Mostly because, like most people I guess, I like value for money (or points in this case).

Taking September 44 in CMBN as an example, I can get a Pz IVJ (early) for 241 points with 0 rarity, or a Stug IIIG (mid) for 299 points with 0 rarity.

The advantages of a Pz IV are, a turret, a second MG, 42 rounds of HE & AP, 3 of smoke, and 3k+ rounds of MG ammo. Also having a 5th crew member means if your tank commander gets headshotted, another crew member can slip into his place - although this loses you the hull machine gunner.

In comparison the Stug III has 27 & 22 of HE & AP respectively, 5 smoke, 600 rounds of MG ammo and only a single MG, one less crew member, no turret, a lower profile, and arguably better stealth characteristics?

If all I want is something stealthy and anti-armour focused, I'm more likely to use a Marder, as I can get two for the price of one Stug and still have change left over. Yeah they're more vulnerable than a fully armoured vehicle particularly from mortars and artillery, and have far less ammo and no MG, but their stealth and spotting are excellent.

Of course, if we're talking about value for points, it's hard to go past the Panther, virtually invulnerable from the front except through the mantlet which is a small target, an insanely good gun, and all this for only 100 points or so more than a Pz IV - which is probably why we see a disproportionate number of them crop up in QBs!

I think Panthers should get bogged more often, even in good terrain, to replicate their unreliability

 

[Titan]

I can't recall the last time I used Stugs in a QB. Mostly because, like most people I guess, I like value for money (or points in this case).

Taking September 44 in CMBN as an example, I can get a Pz IVJ (early) for 241 points with 0 rarity, or a Stug IIIG (mid) for 299 points with 0 rarity.

The advantages of a Pz IV are, a turret, a second MG, 42 rounds of HE & AP, 3 of smoke, and 3k+ rounds of MG ammo. Also having a 5th crew member means if your tank commander gets headshotted, another crew member can slip into his place - although this loses you the hull machine gunner.

In comparison the Stug III has 27 & 22 of HE & AP respectively, 5 smoke, 600 rounds of MG ammo and only a single MG, one less crew member, no turret, a lower profile, and arguably better stealth characteristics?

If all I want is something stealthy and anti-armour focused, I'm more likely to use a Marder, as I can get two for the price of one Stug and still have change left over. Yeah they're more vulnerable than a fully armoured vehicle particularly from mortars and artillery, and have far less ammo and no MG, but their stealth and spotting are excellent.

Of course, if we're talking about value for points, it's hard to go past the Panther, virtually invulnerable from the front except through the mantlet which is a small target, an insanely good gun, and all this for only 100 points or so more than a Pz IV - which is probably why we see a disproportionate number of them crop up in QBs!

And what all this does is make the German Purchase generally very predictable for the allied player...only thing is how many. And the gameplay behaves in a predictable way with the allied player dancing around panthers. Still lots of fun and scope on how to take them on, but games would have a lot more flavour to them if some of these costs where revisted by battlefront and adjusted. I personally would be a Big fan of some of the TD's i would like to buy Hetzers and Stuggs more regulary plus having a jadgpanther would be lots of fun...But at around they 400 point mark, why would you. Might as well get a KT..that is another case where its to dear, got no issue with the high rarity factors of some of these more exotic vehicles just the purchase price is out of whac