Charles2222
Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001 Status: offline
|
Galka: quote:
I never said that 4x the Tigers cost alone would be the ideal solution. please check the OOB thread for my initial suggestion. (it will deal with the med and heavy tank disparity).
I've never said you said that. What I'm faulting, and I've said it before, is that this 4X notion would be the motivating force behind change, for it's built on a house of cards. I might not fault the price changes for another reason, it's just that it's disasterous for doing it for that reason. Frankly I don't believe what you say about a Sherman cheaper than German infantry (an attempt at pulling someone's chain), as I'm suspecting I'll want nothing to do with V.7, such pricing would definitely seal my objection. I couldn't but notice you said "german" infantry platoon, as though the German infantry cost has gone through the roof while the other infantry of other countries remianed the same. I've seen some evidence of the destruction of this game, but definitely but would never suspect anything that looney. Surely you misspoke, are joking, or it really is that bad. Oh well, there's always SPWW2.
Tiger Ferdinand only 10pts. over a PZIVH? Yeah that's bad, but it's all because they're assigning price cost to every category, like it or not. All the Ferny has is great gun and good armor (in places). It would seem to me that either they have made the guns too cheap, or armor. I did a comparison on two like units before, perhaps it was the Ferny and the Elefant and through such a method founf I think it was 15pts. went to the MG. Well, if the Ferny has no MG, and PZIVH has 2, that's 30pts, right there heaped additionally on the PZIVH. OTOH, consider if you had 10 PZIVHs or 9 Fernys, and had to go up against infantry. The PZIVHs would have little or nouble, but the Fernys wouldn't stand a chance (also factor in that the PZIVH has the disadvantage, if you can call it that, of having a tank turret, which should drive the price a bit. If you're a functional armor fighter, then the Ferny is probably too cheap, but if you fight combined arms, then the Ferny with it's limited ammo is and either one or no MGs is a bit out of place. The Ferny is something of a freak, which if you're fighting armor vs. armor looks grossly unfair, but then again I'm not all that crazy about "performance-driven" pricing either. It could probably be priced better even given that system, but it would need a fundamental change on what we thought armor, main guns, and MGs are worth.
We have the same problem with Soviet stuff in relation to armor and slope (well similar anyway), in that a number of Soviet AFVS have outstanding armor/slope, all the way around, and are still cheaper than German stuff. What happens is that since the Germans have usually outstanding guns, and people don't like being hit by them, this drives the gun prices high, whereas the USSR has armor. Like AmmoSgt said, you can take out a Tiger with a shot on it's side fairly easily, it's just a matter of learning how to do that, but with the Soviet stuff, often enough, if you can't kill them from the front, often the side shot is just about just as impossible. In German gameplayer terms, just as in RL, in order to have a chance against such heavy armor, you have to have heavy guns.
This doesn't sit too well with US players, because while Germany was making stuff to deal with the USSR, the US was still making stuff primarily for the Germans of late 42 (the PZIVF2 sort of thing), so that any attempt for the US to play Germany on armor basis will be fairly lopsided; it's just the way it was. Even so, even if the beleagured US player cries foul because there weren't all that many Tigers/Fernys etc, and they want more "normal" units, that still doesn't give them a whole lot of advantage, when you consider that the Panther is in many ways superior to the Tiger, and was actually put-pacing PZIVH production while it was being made, so the rarity excuse wouldn't cut it. I suppose the US player doesn't object to the Panther because even the US armored cars can destroy it from the side. The problem with the Tiger, is that it has sufficient side armor to withstand the cheap risk of armored car attack, while the front is strong enough (except the hull at times) to withstand the guns that can knock it out from the side (the slower Shermans and so forth). That's my theory anyway.
quote:
Nobody that competes does so intentionally to loose. Like you said earlier Only a loser would pit T-34s against Tigers. What do you do for the first 6 months of 1943, avoid battle?
Good one! Well, yeah, sort of. You just have to rely on other methods to achieve good results. I go through the same thing in 41-42 USSR with Gerry. It's murder trying to figure out how to get a couple of 88s to have some sort of affect during offensives, particularly when your main thrust of attack has always been tanks. Every country has a weak period of some sort, it's part of the fun of playing to find out if you're just as much of a man commanding in the happy times as in the bad ones, to say nothing of the thrill of actually facing a lot of the dilemmas real commanders did in not always being on top and rolling over the enemy with advantages at every turn.
_____________________________
|