Galka:
So the Russians deserved to loose? They threw thousands of T-34s against anything the Germans had.
No, I was talking about the game, anybody who tries to defeat Tigers with T34s deserves to lose. Why, and how does this not apply to the RL WWII? Because the Russians couldn't afford to make a very large amount of KVs, while the player can. In other words, while the historic Russian has meterials to consider, the player has nothing more than the small increase in prcie between KVs from T34s. Funny, I never see anyone make the case that KVs should be a lot more expensive because they'd whoop T34s between 2-to-1 to 3-to-1, because the comparison between those two and the T34/Tiger pricing are the same. People try to apply real world arguments to a game that isn't wholly RL and you'll get the wrong approach. The approach to remember about this game, and then things will start making a little bit of sense, is this:
What if two country's forces of about the same size met each other, what would happen?.
OK, That Cost 9000pts for the T-34 and 3720 for the Tiger. At a 2.41 advantage in points the Tiger still scored a high ratio. Thks for your research
You're missing the point. We have one test that says it's 3-to-1 so the Tiger should be triple the price (allegedly), and yet another, when putting the 3-to-1 advantage onto the field which suggests Tiger pricing at only 1.5 the T34, so which figure do you go with? Nevermind the fact that this is invalid in the first place. Compare pricing only based on same class, such as KVs against Tigers, and THEN maybe one can make a case for adjusting prices accordingly. Comparing Tigers to T34s is as much a joke as comparing T34s to PZIIs, they're NOT MEANT to be equivalent.
Think of the fallout of such reasoning, after all the battles which one would base pricing on has finished, you'll end up with Tigers costing 1000 and PZIIs/T70s costing 1 point; truly ridiculous.
First up I'm not suggesting a 'knee jerk' reaction by upping the Tigers price 4x is the solution. However through increases of 10% and extensive playtesting a more suitable balance to our game (for PBEM players), might be attained.
Co-incident with this, it's possible that players may choose to do battle with more common AFVs such as the T-34 and PZ MkIV as their price may not come under modification.
Good, you seem to see the threat for what it is then, however, others have suggested that very thing you see around. Also, you're also seeing my point when you compare T34 to PZIV, because both are in the same class (medium tanks). The somewhat lopsided results from T34s to Tigers, however, is based on the simple notion that somehow the T34 should be it's equal because the Germans lost and it was the Russian mainstay. The Tiger, however formidable, and though in a different class, was not the German mainstay, in fact the Panther was probably a lot closer to that description, though the Panther is sort of a 'funny' in my book, because it's so versatile that it doesn't really fit into either the heavy or the medium classes very well (a tweener I'd say).
Citing tests that are executed by computer AI is both Bogus and Insulting.
Fight me on the Steppe, and on a clear day you will see all your T-34s hiding or burning
First sentence, I agree totally, this is borne of the AOE pricing nonsense, and certainly shouldn't have a place in wargaming, but then that sort of thing was the reasoning for making Tiger pricing exorbitant (though it does create 'something' of a level playing field as Larry said). As I said before, it's always the German stuff that is being targeted. How come nobody ever complains that the KV85 is too cheap in relation to the Sherman? Or the KV85 to the T34/85? Or the Pershing in relation to the PZIV?
As for the second sentence, don't make me laugh, assuming my prior paragraph in this post hadn't already given it away, I'm not the type who would use T34s against Tigers (rather KVs), firstly, and more importantly I'm more inclined to play Gerry.
