Increase FlaK cost? Why? THAT's why!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Increase FlaK cost? Why? THAT's why!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Increase FlaK cost? Why? THAT's why!

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Increase FlaK cost? Why? THAT's why! - 2/20/2002 8:47:00 AM

Svennemir

Posts: 542
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Let's compare the German 2cm Flakvier crewed AA gun with the SS MG42 HMG. SS MG42 HMG
ACC = 11
KILL = 14
COST = 45. 2cm Flakvier
ACC = 16
KILL = 32
COST = 45. (of course the MG42 is faster, but then the FLaK has a crew of nine, better range finder and range and greater WARHEAD value.) Either MG's must have their prices all-round lowered, or the small FlaKs must have theirs increased. One could also tweak the weapon stats, of course. I would suggest changing prices for both weapon categories, but it is up to you, Matrix. At least something should be changed.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 2/20/2002 9:28:00 AM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

You have to take into account many variables with pricing ... The MG42's mobility and small size and survivability ..are also items that effect price .. you can't just pick the variables that you understand ...you have to look at every feature, every atribute, of a weapon to understand the pricing.

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 2

- 2/20/2002 1:32:00 PM

peter hellman

Posts: 217
Joined: 7/29/2001
From: Finland
Status: offline

I like to use 2cm Flakvier. I find it effective against infantry and APC's even lighter tanks. But on the other hand it is quite easy for the enemy to kill also, and it has poor movement compared to the MG.
I have not compared prices, and it is good that someone always look at things more critically.

Me, I'm just playing an' enjoying.

_____________________________

"If you want to live in peace, you have to prepare for war" - Adolf Ehrnrooth

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 3

- 2/20/2002 1:57:00 PM

tracer

Posts: 1865
Joined: 11/22/2000
From: New Smyrna Beach, FL USA
Status: offline

Another thing you're overlooking with the Flakvier: the ammo supply...its almost 1/2 of an MG42 (and less than 1/2 of an SS MG42). I had a PBEM opponent drop Airborne squads and was forced to use a couple Flakvier to fight them off. The 2 guns shot themselves dry in 3-4 turns...granted they took alot of troops out first.

_____________________________

Jim NSB

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 4

- 2/20/2002 2:31:00 PM

K G von Martinez

Posts: 95
Joined: 5/15/2001
From: Hannover, Germany
Status: offline

Another difference may be experience. Being at work (or more precisely at my working place)I can not compare, but I assume the experience of the Flak crew is the same as a regular MG42 while the SS MG 42 has higher experience and therefore a higher price.
Just another idea: is there a difference in the rate of fire? [ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: kgvm ]

_____________________________

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 5

- 2/20/2002 3:25:00 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I thinks it's the fact it's SS makes it 45 points. The reguler MG-42 costs 39 points.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 6

- 2/21/2002 12:58:00 AM

Svennemir

Posts: 542
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Denmark
Status: offline

AmmoSgt: I know many other factors affect the units, but KILL and WARHEAD are the most important while looking at actual combat performance. I'm not saying that the FlaKs are necessarily too good right now, just that they are too cheap compared to the MG's. The MG's are meant to take out infantry ONLY (and perhaps light vehicles of course). The FlaKs are primarily for Aircraft. Since FlaKs can be used in several ways, this should also affect the cost. I know the MG's are faster than FLaKs, but still speed is not so great a factor considering you will normally motorize/mechanize the MG's anyway. Still this does not make up for the Armour penetration and lots of other factors (Fire Control, RangeFinder etc.) That should be clear to see! The SS MG42 costs 45 as the *base* price. Add to that the factor from the experience and the MG42 will be *more* expensive than the FlaK while a lot less lethal. The SS MG42 is more expensive than the non-SS one, because it has better Fire Control (trust me, I have looked at the numberes).

_____________________________

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 7

- 2/21/2002 4:29:00 PM

K G von Martinez

Posts: 95
Joined: 5/15/2001
From: Hannover, Germany
Status: offline

Better fire control for the SS MG42 than for the Wehrmacht MG 42

I remember it was said FC is more than just optics, but noneseless, why??

_____________________________

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 8

- 2/22/2002 4:19:00 PM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by kgvm:
Better fire control for the SS MG42 than for the Wehrmacht MG 42 I remember it was said FC is more than just optics, but noneseless, why??

Good point ! The SS MG is already better, due to elite status and that is enough to reflect a superior training. The weapon itself shouldn't be much different for other troops like Wehrmacht or other nations using it.
The main reason for high FC and RF on MG34/42 are the tripod and the optics. The optics were part of the tripod and stored in a little box, fixed to the tripod itself. So there is no tripod without optics.
Actually, I think there is no need for a "SS-MG", but one general MG and later the experience differences in the formations, like all other nations handle their MGs. Or do you know a "30 cal 1919A4 Ranger MG" ? Ooops, almost forgot the real topic...
I think the main problems are caused by the multibarreled Flaks. They screw up the cost system, as their increase in lethality is not reflected by the price.
Nobody is choosing a 20mm single for a price of 29, when he can get a 20mm quad for 45. Even two 20mm single can't get the job done, a quad does. [ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: Panzer Leo ]

_____________________________

[URL=http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/spwaw_h2h_modrework.php] [IMG]http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/PzLeos-H2H-Title-1.jpg[/IMG] [/URL]

Mir nach, ich folge euch !

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 9

- 2/22/2002 8:26:00 PM

panda124c

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Panzer Leo:
Good point ! The SS MG is already better, due to elite status and that is enough to reflect a superior training. The weapon itself shouldn't be much different for other troops like Wehrmacht or other nations using it.
The main reason for high FC and RF on MG34/42 are the tripod and the optics. The optics were part of the tripod and stored in a little box, fixed to the tripod itself. So there is no tripod without optics.
Actually, I think there is no need for a "SS-MG", but one general MG and later the experience differences in the formations, like all other nations handle their MGs. Or do you know a "30 cal 1919A4 Ranger MG" ? Ooops, almost forgot the real topic...
I think the main problems are caused by the multibarreled Flaks. They screw up the cost system, as their increase in lethality is not reflected by the price.
Nobody is choosing a 20mm single for a price of 29, when he can get a 20mm quad for 45. Even two 20mm single can't get the job done, a quad does. [ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: Panzer Leo ]

Another factor in the costing is the mobility in order for you to get the same mobility for the Flak as the MG you need to buy additional units (transports) this in effect increases the cost of the Flak gun. If you want to change it I'd vote to increase the cost of the Flak gun. However if I remember correctly there is a limit to the max amount you can cost a unit so everything has to be relative. This tends to crunch the cost of units together. In other words the grainularity of the costing system is insufficent to show the true cost differences between units. "Hey Fritz I just saved 45 DMarks can we buy that extra MG now?"

_____________________________

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 10

- 2/22/2002 10:11:00 PM

Svennemir

Posts: 542
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Denmark
Status: offline

In general, Elite units are given higher FC ratings than ordinary ones. Look at SpecOps, Rangers, Commandons etc.: they have FC=5 while equipped with weapons similar to ordinary infantry units. That might explain the higher FC rating for the SS MG42 (also note that SS squads have higher FC than ordinary Rifle/PzGr squads). I fully agree with Panzer Leo: the cost of multiple tubes seems to be the problem.

_____________________________

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 11

- 2/22/2002 10:22:00 PM

Svennemir

Posts: 542
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Denmark
Status: offline

I think I know exactly where the problem comes from: the Cost reform of MG's in 7.0! The problem is that all MG classed weapon had their costs increased while all FLAK classed weapons had not. Some FLAK classed weapons are literally a machine gun (like the US 50cal AAMG), but these were not affected by the change. The MG classed 50cal machine gun now costs 43 while the FLAK classed one costs only 19. In the "old" days (prior to 7.0) both guns cost 22. The AAMG was slower, but it could hit aircraft. That was balanced - let's restore that balance! SOLUTION: All FLAK classed weapons firing multiple shots per "burst" (unlike 88 AA guns and the like) must have their cost increased in a similar way as the MG's. If that is not done, the Cost change of MGs must be undone. I should leave that decision to "the people", but something indeed must happen !

_____________________________

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 12

- 2/22/2002 11:24:00 PM

lnp4668

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Arlington, TX, USA
Status: offline

Just doublecheck Svenemir's theory. Highlight the differences between:
50 cal AAMG: speed: 4, size: 1, RF: 2 AC: 36, HE: 15 ammo: 70 cost 19. 50 cal HMG: speed: 6, size: 0, RF: 3 AC: 40 HE: 16 ammo: 90 + Thompson SMG as secondary weapon, cost 43. So do the advantages of the 50 cal HMG in speed, ammo, size, RF, AC, HE and secondary weapon are enough to counter the 50 cal AAMG's dual role and lower cost? Personally, I will be buying more AAMG

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: lnp4668 ]

_____________________________

"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators." Les Miserables

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 13

- 2/22/2002 11:38:00 PM

Svennemir

Posts: 542
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Thanks lnp! There is of course one more important difference, and that is the ability to fire at aircraft!

_____________________________

(in reply to Svennemir)

Post #: 14

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Increase FlaK cost? Why? THAT's why!

Page: [1]