Troop Quality in preferences

[Charles22]

Yes, I hadn't considered that he may be playing with so small a force that he's not getting much quality opposition.

I'm not sure entirely what he was talking about, as the details aren't too specific, but surely the lack of USSR experience plays in there and I didn't consider that, but I do think their cost, if it's truly all performance-driven, is still out of proportion to their true performance (too cheap). For example, the KV series in the earlier years is invincible to all but the 88, and how many 88's do you anticipate he will see from the AI, especially if the force is small? Consider also that even the T34 is practically invincible if he's loading up with all the good stuff.

I understand also, that the problem may be the system, or rather, that the early USSR is an exception to the system. The problem is that you can only put so much value on armor (I'm not referring to armor in general here, but to the metal protection on armored units), since that same armored rating is ineffectual later in the game. Invincibility is priceless, but you can't give the true worth of that same armor at different periods when it's later vulnerable also, unless you make two or more of the same unit. I'm not suggesting they do that, only when you have invincible armor for a period of time it makes things very difficult to have it either a) underpriced for one period or b) overpriced for another period.

[serg3d]

Charles22 said:
Yes, I hadn't considered that he may be playing with so small a force that he's not getting much quality opposition.

Correct. I prefer battallion level battles and have 1000p allocated at the start of the campain

their cost, if it's truly all performance-driven, is still out of proportion to their true performance (too cheap).

correct.

For example, the KV series in the earlier years is invincible to all but the 88, and how many 88's do you anticipate he will see from the AI, especially if the force is small? Consider also that even the T34 is practically invincible if he's loading up with all the good stuff.

The problem not only with T34 and KV. I tried to minimize their use, but other Russian weapon have too effective price/performance ratio also. DSHK HMG, 57mm ATG, old T-35
- they are all so cheap and effective that even without T34/KV "supertanks" russian beating german too easily.
And I don't like advice about putting some force aside and not using it. It essentially suggestion to rebalance game manually for each battle. The best solution would be just having option to change player/AI point ratio.

I'm not suggesting they do that, only when you have invincible armor for a period of time it makes things very difficult to have it either a) underpriced for one period or b) overpriced for another period.

Yep, that may be a problem too. The solution could be an ability to change point alloctaion ratio per battle , like having easy/medium/hard battle option.

[narwan]

T35 M1938, standard cost is 68 points. KV1 M1940, standard cost is 66 points. T34/76 M1941+, standard cost is 62 points. I can hardly call those T35's cheap?

For comparison, Pnz IIIL, standard cost 60. PnzIVf2, standard cost is 69. StuGIIIf, standard cost is 65. Pnz38e(t) (the beefed up version), standard cost is 44.

57mm AT gun (without sabot), standard cost 31 points. Pak38 (with sabot), standard cost 35.

Nothing inherently cheap about the russians. It would seem you are more than able to compensate for the lack of experience and morale of your units through tactics and maybe exploiting the AI's weaknesses. It's why I hardly ever play battles or campaigns against the AI. Too easy no matter who I play.

Having an easy/medium/hard option for battles/campaigns might be an option although I don't know if it is possible code wise.

Narwan

[Charles22]

This may not work across the board to show tanks that aren't driven by systems and experience/morale alone, but look at this:

The wimpiest German tank with a standard MG is the PZIB for 24pts (I would use the PZIA but it has a special MG). While the USSR T-18M is 19pts. The T18 not only has a little better armor, but also has an entire extra main gun and is still cheaper. The T18's gun is the 45mm and to make matters worse (in some respects) it has nothing but 60 salvo shots. That's 9pts of armor piercing ability, destroying any German tank with maximum penetration till the Tiger comes along (I think this makes the 45L66 VASTLY overrated, and if this tank had standard AP it would still register better penetration than any German tank gun until the 75L43 comes along). On the down side the MG is a BMG instead of the PZIB's CMG (so limited range), but it's still VERY cheap. This is a considerably better weapon system than the PZIB, and it being 5pts cheaper isn't in the same ballpark with only a 20pt experience loss in my books.

I think I've seen things like the standard USSR equivalent for the SK221 as cheap as like 7pts!

Unfortunately dwelling on these cheaper AFV's diminishes my point somewhat, in that I think having armor that for the period that is invincible to other AFV fire isn't priced as the invaluable asset it is (talking the early T34's and KV's most particularly - but as I said, you need multitudes of the same tank to make the price entirely consistent throughout it's lifespan of purchasing, which just cannot be done). I know many Gerry AFV's, for example, have in many cases better optics and what not that I'm not considering just now, but it is true that most of the USSR stuff is super-cheap and doesn't seem to reflect it being based on values of the weapons systems, armor, optics, and experience/morale alone.

In any event, though serg3d doesn't like it, if in picking the USSR ourselves, we can negate the cheap advantage somewhat by just buying things we refuse to use, wecan offset the advantage. Seems to me that beats re-writing the prices of everything, though it is a bit strange. That's the way it will be if "I" am the one that does something about it in my games (have to find easy compromises you know). Unfortunately that doesn't keep the AI from getting super-cheap USSR assets.

[Charles22]

I don't know how you came about your figures, but my encyclopedia says you're wrong. The T35 1938 is 58pts, not 68. And that's based on 70 experience, not the game experience. With the game experience that tank is probably under 50pts! Also, the T34 1940 (which you didn't really list) is something like 56pts (maybe 58) at 70 experience!
A tank that no AFV gun in the world can destroy (excepting possibly a salvo shot) with a good gun itself (though not easy to target) is that cheap?

Part of the problem we have here, is that the encyclopedia cost and the game cost are different, but I haven't the faintest notion how you get your figures, unless you're playing with a super-experienced USSR. The encyclopedia prices for early German equipment, for example, will actually be slightly more expensive in the game, whereas the USSR equipment will be quite a bit cheaper in-game.

[narwan]

There are two T35M1938's in the game. As this was a multi-turreted beast with a lot more than 4 weapons (all that the game system allows for) there are two versions of it. One emphasizes the AP weaponry (two slots of 45mm guns besides the main gun) another the MG armament (1 slot of 45mm guns and an additional MG slot). The first is 68 points, the second 58.

Comparing specific units to each other and saying th cost is off doesn't work. Units have to be compared to all other units in the game to get a fair relative cost.
The example I usually give for this that of a T34/76 and a Tiger tank, both with the same quality crew. Put them against each other and the Tiger is far superior. From that comparison alone the Tiger should be much more expensive than the T34.
Now put both against a platoon of infantry with heavy AT weapons in close quarters combat. The Tiger will not perform much better than the T34. From that perspective they should be priced nearly the same.

And as I said earlier, encyclopedia cost is for experience/morale 70/70. In '41 for germany actual experience/morale is 75/75 and for the soviet union it's 55/55.
I'm currently playing a mirror PBEM game set in 41 between these two nations. The difference in experience means that with near similar quality of equipment (optics etc) the german crews will have nearly DOUBLE the chance of scoring hits compared to their illtrained adversaries. And more shots for main weapons (5 or 6 for 37mm guns while soviets have 3 or 4 for 45mm guns). It makes a very big difference.

The current relative cost structure, including modification for morale and experience, hasn't been thought up overnight. It has been many years of playing, testing and finetuning to get it to this. It is very well balanced.
That doesn't mean you can't have at a certain time period a relative advantage which seems higher than the cost would indicate. But there are always ways to counter this, although I admit the AI isn't very good at finding the right way to deal with these specific threats.

Narwan

[Charles22]

Okay, obviously I took the first T38M1938 I saw and didn't know of the other (the one I took was buried deep enough as it was).

I don't know, but it just seems to me that the effective pricing of armor isn't correct, but it's probably also true that if it's pricing were raised and guns were lower, for example, we would see some other anamoly like Nashorns for ten cents.

Despite it hitting less, I just can't get over the '40 T34 having a gun, that when it hits will smash every enemy AFV, and have the cream of the armor crop (aside from the KV series) and have all that speed, and still is the same encyclopedia price as the pretty much worthless PZIIIE (in the game the T34 would be closer to 50).

Everything the USSR has, even the 46L66 can destroy the PZIIIE, while the only hope for Germany against the T34 is the 88 (before the 50L66 ATG), or in-close infantry, as no AFV gun until 50L42 salvo will dent it. The main things it has going for it a period of invincible armor, top-flight speed, and, if it hits, a very destructive gun.

Again, I just think the 45L66 is overated in punch (not that it's a T34 gun), and if it were doing so well I would have to wonder why the USSR wouldn't have kept just putting that on their AFV's as they were doing with the T35 and such early on. Apparently it was failing in some way. It couldn't be the accuracy of it, because you would think it more accurate than the 76's they came out with (some of the latter 76's being an exception of course).

As well, I hope you guys don't get into the trap that some have, that is the error of comparing the T34 to the Tiger. The T34 isn't really meant to compete with it, that's why they made the KV series, or rather, the Tiger was an answer to the KV series. I believe technically the Panther was the answer to the T34 (though the earlier Tiger could somewhat fill that role, since as with most heavies it could withstand any medium tanks), so people should compare the T34 to that or the PZIVH's and so forth. The reason I mention this is because I've been in arguments with people before (not this board) about the silliness of comparing two completely different tank classes and try to run pricing through that.

The argument went that since the Tiger beat the T34 so much of the time, then the T34 should be a lot cheaper (or Tiger more expensive). With that logic the PZIIIE which is at the same encyclopedic price as the '40 T34, should be a lot cheaper, and it's even in the same class to boot. That would only be valid if comparing the Tiger to the KV. One could make the same dumb argument that the PZIV comes off badly against the KV or JS, and that the PZIV should be a lot cheaper thereby. It's just running in circles to do that, and is only effective, it seems to me, if someone is trying to get their 'favorite', T34 in this case, to not be subjected to the same system that the others were (pricing due to equipment alone, not also based on phoney matches between two mis-matched classes).

Why on earth do people compare a medium tank to a heavy and expect fair pricing from the result? I just don't get it. You could take the same argument to comparing T34's to PZIIC's for example. Let's say one PZIIC costs 30pts. After the battle to determine price, the T34 destroys 100 of them without loss. Does this mean that now the T34 should now be 100X the PZIIC price? It just doesn't work. I know you were talking about the chances of infantry destroying them lowering price, but nonetheless, the PZIIC in this example has the same risk of destruction from infantry does it not (more actually)?

Sorry if I sound a bit frustrated or angry, but that comparing different classes of tanks just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and to see people still using that as a measuring stick is more irksome still, nonetheless I still think that '40 T34 is too cheap (just the first thing I noticed about the super-cheap USSR equipment).

Thnaks for your response, and I hope I'm not seeing history repeat in the case of any 'battle' pricing aspect there may be.

[serg3d]

Another soluton could be "rarity" used in the SPWAW. In the begiining of the Barbarossa there wre not was many T34 (proportionally to older tanks, not in the absolute numbers). If make no more then platoon T34 or KV available at the beginning of the war that would be realistic. Of cause AI sill need some (at least 100%) advantage to compensate for its tactical shortcomings. Also in my opinion USSR troop quality in the beginning of the war should be lower. Probaly around 45. I've checked - early battles still winnable with troop quality 35, with current setting, so with 100% AI advantage it should be something like 45.

[pdoktar]

I remember starting a same kind of thread in WinSPMBT forum about the relative expensiveness of AIFVs vs. tanks. I had hard-time selling my arguments there and was somewhat proved wrong, because I was using the same argument
as here, of one unit vs. another one unit, not one unit vs. all other units possible. (Artillery, infantry, air assets, tanks, aifvs, apcs, missile teams etc.)

[narwan]

Charles22 said:Okay, obviously I took the first T38M1938 I saw and didn't know of the other (the one I took was buried deep enough as it was).

I did the same, the one with the extra 45mm appeared first (I have the PT version of the game which has some additional sorting features so the order in which they appeared in my encyclopedia might have been different from yours).

Charles22 said:
Despite it hitting less, I just can't get over the '40 T34 having a gun, that when it hits will smash every enemy AFV, and have the cream of the armor crop (aside from the KV series) and have all that speed, and still is the same encyclopedia price as the pretty much worthless PZIIIE (in the game the T34 would be closer to 50).

Think of it like this; the T34 1940 can kill the PZIIIE, but the PIVf2 can kill the T34 1940, and the PZIIIE can kill the PIVf2! So how to work out the pricing between these? Now add all the other units in the game to come to an as realistic as possible cost balance between all of these units for all of the time period covered by the game. The current cost structure is what you end up with.
The trick when playing is, and that's basically the whole issue of 'the art of war' is to find the right tool against the right enemy unit. Optimizing your own effectiveness and minimizing the enemies. Clearly you don't want to go head on with T34's if you've got PZIIIE's. Lure them into pak traps like rommel did...

Charles22 said:
Again, I just think the 45L66 is overated in punch (not that it's a T34 gun), and if it were doing so well I would have to wonder why the USSR wouldn't have kept just putting that on their AFV's as they were doing with the T35 and such early on.

They did. It become the standard weapon for their light tanks (T70, T50, T80). The multiturretting of the T35 was discontinued because it wasn't cost effective to produce and extremely hard to command during combat, so no secondary gun armaments anymore.

Narwan