AFV pricing method!

[Voriax]

Hi all.

You have probably seen my 'Zecret Formula' for pricing armoured vehicles. It was discussed somewhat under another topic, but I decided to start own topic for it.

Following is a listing of all current variables used to determine AFV prices. Note that you are not supposed to apply it to units like infantry or field arty.

Also there is a list of some new AFV prices. Mostly German vehicles and some French, Soviet, UK and US units thrown in for reference. Feel free to calculate additional units and compare them to others. Typos in unit prices probable, but they won't be many points off in any case

Then please post/mail comments/gripes/flames/whinings/whatever.

Do *not* flame guys at Matrix Games. This is my idea as for now, although they may like this a bit
-------------------------
Here it is:
-------------------------

Base value:

- add all armour values except top and skirts
- divide this by 6
- add the speed value
- add AP penetration value
- divide by 2

From this Base value:

- subtract 20% if vehicle is open-topped
- subtract 10% if vehicle is wheeled
- subtract 5% if vehicle has no turret
- add 5% if vehicle has APCR ammunition

- Add 3 if vehicle has HEAT ammunition
- add 1 for each mg, 2 if it's an AAMG or 10+mm calibre, 3 if it's a
10+mm AAMG
- add 2 for smoke discharger
- Size: Base value is 3, add/subtract the difference from this.
Smaller is better.
- Rate of Fire: Base value is 5, add/subtract the difference from this.
Higher is better
- add 2 if vehicle is amphibious
- add 3 if vehicle is command tank, for the certain radio.
- add 15 for infra-red sights
- add the values for Fire Control and Range Finder.
- add 5 points if vehicle has skirts
- Warhead size, base is 2, add/subtract the difference. Larger expensive

+ For SPAA vehicles, use HE kill figure instead of AP penetration
+ For SPA, add HE penetration and HE kill instead of AP penetration.
+ in case of dual cannon (Char B1 etc) use better AP pen. value and add
10 points for the secondary gun.
+ Use HE penetration if there is no AP value.


W = Wheeled
OT = Open Top
NT = No turret

***Note that 1st value is 'base' value, the 2nd is the *final price* and the figure in parenthesis is the version 2.2 OOB value.***
---------------------------------------------
GERMAN VEHICLES:

Armoured cars:

PSW-221 19 = 20 (14) W,OT
PSW-222 31 = 33 (26) W,OT
PSW-231 6-rad 30 = 35 (21) W
PSW-231 8-rad 34 = 41 (23) W
PSW-233 47 = 40 (36) W,OT,NT
PSW-234/1 36 = 35 (28) W,OT
PSW-234/2 67 = 72 (45) W
PSW-234/3 49 = 41 (40) W,OT,NT
PSW-234/4 93 = 78 (52) W,OT,NT


Light tanks:

PzKpfw-Ib 14 = 21 (17)
PzKpfw-IIc 30 = 42 (21)
PzKpfw-IIf 33 = 46 (23)
PzKpfw-IIL 37 = 52 (25)

Main Battle Tanks:

PzKpfw-35(t) 38 = 49 (34)
PzKpfw-38(t) 41 = 53 (37)
PzKpfw-38(t)e 48 = 60 (41)
PzKpfw-IIIe 43 = 54 (39)
PzKpfw-IIIg 58 = 70 (51)
PzKpfw-IIIh 63 = 79 (54)
PzKpfw-IIIj 62 = 78 (55)
PzKpfw-IIIj(s) 72 = 90 (57)
PzKpfw-IIIL 75 = 99 (59) Amphib, Skirts
PzKpfw-IIIm 74 = 97 (59) Amphib, Skirts
PzKpfw-IIIn 56 = 75 (51) Skirts

PzKpfw-IVf2(s) 93 = 106 (67)
PzKpfw-IVg 95 = 114 (72)
PzKpfw-IVh 101 = 126 (73) Skirts
PzKpfw-IVj 99 = 118 (71) Skirts

PzKpfw-Va 119 = 131 (121)
PzKpfw-Vd 132 = 147 (116)
PzKpfw-Vg 135 = 151 (125)
PzKpfw-Vg(uhu)132 = 164 (144) IR-sights


CS-tanks:

PzKpfw-IVc 45 = 53 (39)
PzKpfw-IVd 47 = 57 (42)
PzKpfw-IVe 50 = 61 (44)
PzKpfw-IVf 55 = 68 (49) HEAT

Heavy Tanks:

PzKpfw-VIb 180 = 196 (188)
PzKpfw-VIe 139 = 154 (117)
Maus 232 = 253 (250)

-----------------------------
FRENCH ARMOURED VEHICLES:

Armoured cars:

Panhard 178 43 = 43 (33) W
AMD 80 AM 21 = 19 (20) W,OT
AMC P16 Mle29 31 = 26 (21) W,OT
AMD 50 AM 31 = 29 (10) W


LIGHT TANKS:

AMR-33 16 = 19 (14)
R-35 38 = 40 (43)
R-40 45 = 48 (30)
H-35 38 = 40 (22)
H-39 39 = 43 (22)
FT-17C 21 = 20 (17)
FT-17M 8 = 9 (7)
AMR-35 17 = 20 (16)
FCM-36 39 = 41 (20)

MAIN BATTLE TANKS:

Somua S-35 56 = 61 (53)
Char-D2 61 = 67 (55)
Char D1 B 52 = 56 (58)

HEAVY TANKS:

Char-B1 50 = 65 (58)
Char-B1 bis 60 = 76 (71)


--------------------------------

SOVIET UNION

Armoured cars:

BA-10 47 = 47 (30) W
BA-20 15 = 18 (12) W

Light tanks:

T-26 m33 42 = 47 (32)
T-60 32 = 40 (21)

Cruiser/CS tanks:

BT-2 m33 41 = 45 (30)
BT-7a 38 = 45 (33)

MBT:

T-28 m40 53 = 61 (49)
T-35a 48 = 60 (52)
T-34 m41 81 = 88 (69)
T-34/85 120 = 136 (120)

Heavy tank:

KV-1 m39 86 = 91 (75)
KV-85 134 = 151 (129)
-----------------------------------

UNITED KINGDOM

Armoured cars:

Rolls AC 32 = 34 (19) W
Daimler Mk1 64 = 68 (39) W

Light tanks:

Mark VIc 31 = 41 (19)
vickers M2 38 = 44 (30)

Cruiser/CS tanks:

Cruiser Mk1 53 = 64 (36)
Cruiser Mk3CS 33 = 42 (28)

Other types:

VC Firefly 133 = 154 (137)
Churchill 3 99 = 109 (95)
Chuch. AVRE 110 = 123 (149)

------------------------------------------------

US ARMY

Armoured car:

M8 Greyhound 60 = 53 (24) W,OT
M20 Scout 33 = 31 (12) W,OT

Light tanks:

M3 Stuart 64 = 74 (26)
M24 Chaffee 76 = 95 (48)

MBT's:

M3A1 Lee 82 = 100 (59)
M4 Sherman 88 = 101 (60)
M4a3e8 HVSS 118 = 141 (88)
M26 Pershing 140 = 164 (119)

[Drake666]

Will to me it dont look like any real inprovement. It looks like many units are still over priced and others are still underpriced.

I just dont think a formula is going to worked. What you really need is someone with all ths stats on hand to go one by one and price them looking at all the factors.

[Charles22]

Voriax: In what way does this signifigantly change things? I know the T34/85, IMO, was a bad comparison to the Tiger, but our discussion at one point was focused around that, and I see both vehicles go up in value about the same amount. Also, for better comparison's sake, the KV line increase is much the same.

I don't see a whole lot of difference, which isn't bad necessarily in my book. BTW, how does the Nadhorn do? It's grossly too expensive (if you're comparing materials to that of the Tiger) and maybe there is where we could see this system adjust something signifigantly. Bear in mind, that for vehicles which aren't overpriced, all this does is up their cost, while this puts a greater cost gap between the infantry and vehicles (except the light stuff perhaps). I see you system hasn't helped the Firefly any.

[Voriax]

Charles, the main changes are:

-AFV's in general get more expensive

- and the main change is that the tank prices are now based to some known system. For example I do not know how the original values were figured out. Butt feeling? That has irritated me somewhat.

Now the T34/85 is cheaper than the Tiger, although more expensive than before. As a side-effect this should make number of people happy

Poor Firefly...this method gives a large importance to main gun AP penetration. The 17 lbr is better than the 88 L/56 there. That and the fact it has APCR and almost as good firecontrols is enough to offset the poorer armour.

Nashorn comes to 130, due to the highly effective gun. old value is 147. As for materials expense, this is not valued in any way. Perhaps if someone can produce the cost in Reichsmarks?

Voriax

[WW2'er]

Originally posted by Voriax:
Charles, the main changes are:


- and the main change is that the tank prices are now based to some known system. For example I do not know how the original values were figured out. Butt feeling? That has irritated me somewhat.

Voriax

Voriax,

"Butt Feeling" irritates me too!

WW2'er

[BA Evans]

Originally posted by Voriax:
Butt feeling? That has irritated me somewhat.

Butt Feeling? I have looked all over the manual and I can find nothing about Butt Feeling....

On another note, I don't really want the average AFV price to increase. I like Tanks, and I would like them to play an important role in the battle. If we increase the cost too much, Tanks could become cost ineffective compared to Infantry and Anti-Tank Guns.

BA Evans

[Drake666]

In your formula Voriax I see that you everlook many imported factors like
-FC
-RoF
-ACC
-Rgf

I think when you factor in armour the Front should be the most imported becouse thats were a large number of the shots will hit.

Do you account for the armor angle at all or is that just not a factor for you.

Will I just see to many short falls in your formula and I think the prices you get prove that.

[This message has been edited by Drake666 (edited 07-12-2000).]

[Voriax]

Evans, Drake, thanks for the comments.

Evans, the prices for infantry and just about everything may change. Plenty of things changing in the oob's. But they may also stay as they are, I dunno yet.

Prices for US rifle squads, for example, go from 12 to 28. Airborne is more. The expensive ones cost about same as mg armed armoured car or light tankette. With old prices it was possible to buy a Stuart cheaper than one inf. squad. That didn't feel right to me, others will think different.

Drake, Rangefinder, Firecontrol and Firing Rate are already in. Accuracy currently isn't. Armour slope is ignored as you can see from the formula. (I was too lazy to begin calculating them in with a pocket calculator ) I'll let the well sloped tanks get that as free bonus.

Yep, it surely isn't perfect. But at least it's food for thought.

And to redirect flames: Thanks to Seth for helping me with this formula.

Voriax

[Drake666]

Originally posted by Voriax:

Yep, it surely isn't perfect. But at least it's food for thought.

Voriax

Was not trying to put down or what you did or anything, at lest your trying and we do need something new in the priceing field.

I think each class needs a formula of its own. I have run many formulas on spreedsheet I have of all of the armoured units of the US, UK, Germany and the Soviets and a formula that gives you good prices for one class just dont do it for the other classes.

[victorhauser]

Voriax, a quick and easy way to factor armor slopes into your price formula is:

(Armor Thickness) divided by (the Cosine of the Armor Slope) yields (Effective Armor)

Also, a general comment I have. I see lots of "additive" and "linear" factors to your formula. I think that "multiplicative" and "non-linear" factors might be able to produce "smoother" results. I use a lot of square roots and cube roots and quadratics and scaling/normalizing co-efficients when I do ratings for the game company I work for. My intuition tells me that your ratings are in "rough draft" form at this stage, ready for more polishing.

But alas, as Charles and others have pointed out, even though your numbers are based on a "consistent" system, the problem is that it's going to be very difficult to playtest your system to see if/what improvements need to be made.

[David boutwell]

How were the ASL values arrived at? Did any of you ASL players ever have a problem with those values?

[renwor]

Originally posted by victorhauser:

Also, a general comment I have. I see lots of "additive" and "linear" factors to your formula. I think that "multiplicative" and "non-linear" factors might be able to produce "smoother" results.

Yes , thats my feeling exactly. Adding 3 for HEAT is shiny example. So you add 3 both for PSW 222 and Firefly ???? er.....

It's Ok for MGs though, I think, but I would raise it a bit, twice AT LEAST.
If we end up with consistently higher value, no problem, divide everything by universal constant of 1.362521 and we are back home ))

But generaly I think the formula is needed, maybe not as a rule, but as a scale.
I think the rarity should play a role. NOT IN FORMULA !!! But result should be adjusted by some rarity factor IMHO.
I simply love the idea of dynamic pricing based on months since release date. If you want TIGERs the very first month they appear, pay for them twice, decrease over XXX month to base ... I don't remember who came up with it (not me), so I cannot give credits, just support.


Renwor

[Antonius]

Originally posted by David boutwell:
How were the ASL values arrived at? Did any of you ASL players ever have a problem with those values?

In ASL, the unit cost was used only if buying an OB for a "random" game and never for determining victory so it didn't matter when playing scenarios.
I've played ASL a lot but only scenarios as I never liked the "random" battle procedure and, yes, thought that unit costs were not well designed.

Pricing units is in my view a very delicate question since it is a matter of relative efficiency compared to the other units. A tank for instance should not be rated only based on its efficiency against tanks but also against soft targets. Take the Elefant: powerfull tank killer at long ranges but quite useless against infantry and even quite easily disposed of by lighter tanks at short ranges because of its size, lack of turret and very poor speed. How much should it cost ? Players who use them well will be ready to pay a lot for it while players who use them for things it is not designed for will say it's overpriced. It also means that an Elefant's real combat value depends a lot on the map and visibility of any given battle !
Likewise, if you play the US against Germany you will like Shermans some battles because they can handle moderatly well any kind of situation but find them overpriced in plain battles against Panthers. As German, you will find any big tank over-priced if the opponent has plenty of airsupport.

In short, pricing a unit is an estimation of its combat effectiveness which in turn is highly influenced by the combat situation: map, visibility, opposing force and even the opponent. A unit can be deemed over-priced or under-priced when it turns out that most players will systematically buy respectively none or plenty of it in most battles.

[Ed]

Maybe we could end up with 2 different pricing systems.
One could be tailored for scenarios and PBEM games, based on a "battlefield value" system close to the one by Voriax.
The second one could be used for campaigns were other parameters could be thrown into the model: how difficult was to build a certain vehicles, the "marginal to decisive ratio" obtained by the player during the campaign and so on.
In this second system a Gerry player in '44, veteran of many marginal victories, could end up paying really "a lot" for a Tiger.

Ed

[Nikademus]

a detailed and impressive rating system!

however i still feel that the dominant factor in determining the final AFV cost must come from the economic quarter.

Tactical situations can vary wildly.

Economic situations tend to be more consistant.

examples;

regardless of actual 'effectiveness' and lethality the Russians were able to mass-produce the T-34 therefor it should not be surprising for a German player, especially latewar to face the challenge of facing large #'s of these tanks.

In contrast the Tiger was an economically expensive unit (for the Germans) to build and only 1000+ were built so making the unit expensive based primarily on this fact should cause the AI to select less of them.

similar for Panther. Easier to build than Tiger certainly but still not nearly as mass producable as either the Sherman or T-34.
Add that economic cost to the tank's inherent ability and a plattoon of said vehicles should cost considerably more than one either of T-34 (whatever variant) or the Sherman.

Konigstigers would be an extremely rare vehicle (given the size (hence economic cost) + the real life statistic of 489 built)
so the purchase price should be considerable.

the SP-I system seemd to reflect this well. Why not a return to it? after all we can now specifically influence the # of battle points available so making the rarer (and usuallly more effective) AFV's more expensive should'nt cause them to be 'too rare' on the battlefield?

[Voriax]

Drake, no offence taken. I was well aware in advance that this will cause discussion and dissent

I did toy a bit with 'correction' factors for each class of vehicle but it didn't feel right then as a 'light' tank in 1944 may be so tough that it eats 1939 Main battle tanks for breakfast.

Renwor, the +3 points for HEAT came in such way that HEAT round was considered as 'mixed' blessing. While APCR will give you constant penetration results, HEAT ammo may work 100% or be a complete dud, normally something in between. In SPWAW it's not a round I'd use as only ammo in a tank. Oh and PSW-222 does not have them
I'd like to have optional rarity factors also. That might make AI not to buy hordes of same tank.

Antonius, Interesting post. But in case of the Elephant, isn't the player in error if he claims that his 'Anti-personnel' Elephant is too expensive? but in any case we'll just have to make do with what we have, regardless of weather.

Btw, I tried a random campaign starting 1939 and in the first battle, meeting engagement, the weather was Thunderstorm and visibility was 2! It was bloody, I tell you. Terrain was rather irrelevant...

The economic factor is interesting, but not very easy. It's one case to compare Tiger and T-34 but let's consider Marder? Perhaps it should be dirt cheap as it was a modification on existing chassis that was paid when it belonged to the original vehicle?

The T-34 wasn't that easily massproduced, there was a lot of troubles in building it. Later the cast turret was a tough part. But when you do tanks 24hr/day with enough resources and no air raids it's much easier to do more of them than doing them 8 hours/day with slave labour and under air raids (slight exxageration intentional)

Also this factor should then be determined in for each vehicle separately.And captured units would be hard to rate too...

Voriax



[This message has been edited by Voriax (edited 07-13-2000).]

[Nikademus]

captured tanks should have their price drasticly inflated just to simulate their rarity vs one's own builds.

at the very least it should keep the AI from choosing alot of them.

It would be odd to be attacked by mass hordes of your own tanks (interesting....but odd. )

on the economics issue, to clarify further perhaps economic factors should also consider total # built. T-34 may have had production challenges, but still a whole hell ofva lot of em were built! Same for the Sherman.

[JJU57]

The biggest problem in including the production runs in tank cost is that this game doesn't represent the whole army but just a single battle. Even if only 489 King Tigers were built they did fight somewhere.

So to increase their cost because of production runs would limit the possibility of using them. Who said that my specific battle wasn't the one where they were used.

If in a campaign I have 10 major victories why wouldn't the higher ups give some of their best equipment to me? The real goal here is to try and create a 'balanced' game through points and the best way to do that is how they currently handle it. Rate a tank based on performance and then balance the forces that way.

Assigning production costs would be a strategic game and not a tactical one.

[Nikademus]

its not a perfect solution, granted. But i've noticed that more angst is created by running campaigns where players are frequently being attacked by mass quantities of AFV's that they know historically did'nt exist.

My personal experience was my Italian campaign....Greek player had hordes of L5's

its a definate quandry. Especially given that the AI needs all the help it can get. Attempting to limit it's selections to match one's own core force might produce even more lopsided battle results

[Charles22]

I'm glad to see that the Nashorn is shown a little justice with this system, as this system can, in some ways, reflect a "material" system, as indeed pricing by class, or pricing by tonnage can (usually the latter two are the same thing).

If this system is nor based at all on rarity, I can see a major flaw with this, though I would question how flawed it is, when I cannot foresee myself using that unit anyway. What I'm talking about is the huge penalty for IR. Only it being rare and something new can explain why it's so high, but as I said, I cannot foresee using the Panther Uhu regardless.