Point Values

[Huib Versloot]

That's good....rarity was not the best word, but I recall it, or perhaps "scarcity", ias used n an earlier discussion on truck value. No matter. I reiterate two points. Generally values of CS have held up well over time, and to me it defies logic and commonsense to suggest that all tanks are created equal, as it were. Is a Sherman Firefly
equal to an early Sherman. Of couse not. There was a need for a better tank, hence the Sherman was upgunned and uparmoured in various ways. The later Shermans were thus of greater value. Simple as that.

I would like to open a discussion of transport values in general, an area where CS has always had problems. Would a new thread be better?

The extra value of the Sherman Firefly shows in game play because you need it for it's capabilities. What you won't feel in the game is if that Firefly would be 1vp more expensive than a regular Sherman when you lose one. You lose what the Firefly could do for you in the battle that is what counts. Trade a few Allied infantry platoons for the same number of German Volksgrenadiers and you can afford to lose another Firefly, pointwise that is. That shows how ridiculous the vp allocation system is at the moment. That's why I said make all tanks equal (or make a distinction between light med and heavy tanks) and let the designer display this difference in value (that I don't deny) in the victory conditions.
The other way would be to make a vp system that really reflects actual combat capabilities. In that case A Panther should be worth about 20-35 vp if a Sherman is 7, Volksgrenadiers should not have more value than US infantry etc etc. And even if you did that, morale is still not counted while it should be.
Or do nothing, since everybody is used to the current system, even I am.
I start to repeat myself... Hopefully my point is clear now.

By the way in PzC all vehicles and guns individually are worth the value of 10 men. That is the core problem of that game engine that ensures realistic simulations are impossible, since it is too simplistic. If I want CS to be more simple... I don't mean that simple.

Huib