Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In the Grey Wolf Panzerkompanie, a Panzer IV H is 90pnts a piece while a StuG G/IV is 95pnts... does anyone know the reason why?

At first glance, it seems that the Panzer IV H is superior in nearly all aspects: it has a turret, cost 5 pnts less per piece and has an extra MG. The only thing StuG has in advantage is the 7 Front Armor as opposed to Panzer IV H's 6.

Is +1 Front Armor really worth a turret, 5 points and a MG? Or am I missing something in the rules?

i prefer stug in particulary against soviet tankovy

Depends. Against a T34 from long range it's 8 vs 9 so it can only bail out, a 75 mm M4 can penetrate on armor save 1, the panzer IV on 1 and 2 so it's double as though.
If it's a SU100 or M36 you are dead either way

The way hull mounted weapons work in Flames of War doesn't make a turret that big of a bonus.

 Ghaz wrote:
The way hull mounted weapons work in Flames of War doesn't make a turret that big of a bonus.

This.

Panzer IVH tanks and StuGs used to cost the same. And the vast majority of the time, players took StuGs when they had a choice. The points difference is Battlefront reacting to the realities of the situation and attempting to make it a little more desirable to use Panzer IVs. iirc, Grey Wolf was the first book that had different points for the two vehicles.

So that +1 Front Armor is much better than turret/MG.

A hull-mounted weapon has a 180 degree field of fire covering everything in front of a line drawn across the front of the vehicle. A turret isn't that big of an advantage unless you've let the enemy flank you.

The Panzer IV H already has a hull-mounted MG, so any additional MG will only have ROF 1 when fired with the Main Gun and another MG.

So without knowing Battlefront's formula (and unlike GW, they do have a formula), I would say the extra +1 armour was probably worth around 5-10 points.

 Ghaz wrote:
A hull-mounted weapon has a 180 degree field of fire covering everything in front of a line drawn across the front of the vehicle. A turret isn't that big of an advantage unless you've let the enemy flank you.

The Panzer IV H already has a hull-mounted MG, so any additional MG will only have ROF 1 when fired with the Main Gun and another MG.

So without knowing Battlefront's formula (and unlike GW, they do have a formula), I would say the extra +1 armour was probably worth around 5-10 points.

Is it just me or the 180 degrees kinda... ridiculous?

 Zaki66 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
A hull-mounted weapon has a 180 degree field of fire covering everything in front of a line drawn across the front of the vehicle. A turret isn't that big of an advantage unless you've let the enemy flank you.

The Panzer IV H already has a hull-mounted MG, so any additional MG will only have ROF 1 when fired with the Main Gun and another MG.

So without knowing Battlefront's formula (and unlike GW, they do have a formula), I would say the extra +1 armour was probably worth around 5-10 points.

Is it just me or the 180 degrees kinda... ridiculous?

It's not you.

My understanding is that in reality it should be about a 30 degree arc. But it simplifies things to set it to 180 degrees instead.

It's an abstraction that indicates that the weapon could have been fired at any point of it's movement that turn, not just where it happened to be sitting when it's shooting comes around.

 Ghaz wrote:
It's an abstraction that indicates that the weapon could have been fired at any point of it's movement that turn, not just where it happened to be sitting when it's shooting comes around.

But when it comes to balance of the game, a lack of turret only presents a minuscule amount of disadvantage in most situations.

Which is why the points for a turreted versus a turretless vehicle are comparable.

I personally prefer StuGs, but I like infantry armies and StuGs were more common both in general and in support of infantry units.

At the scale FoW uses I think the way non-turreted guns work is about right, especially considering you're probably going to be engaging from a longer range to keep from getting flanked.

 Hordini wrote:
I personally prefer StuGs, but I like infantry armies and StuGs were more common both in general and in support of infantry units.

At the scale FoW uses I think the way non-turreted guns work is about right, especially considering you're probably going to be engaging from a longer range to keep from getting flanked.

The main point worth noting is that the rules mean that you don't need to change the facing on your assault guns every time you decide that you want to fire at a different platoon.

 Zaki66 wrote:
So that +1 Front Armor is much better than turret/MG.

Pretty much.

Turret and MG is almost inconsequential. Another point of armor is a big deal.

The only way a turret matters is if you do not want to change your facing and still shoot at a target to your side. Which has very little difference in actual game play. You might as well turn to face them with superior frontal armor anyway.

Turret actually means alot if you are receiving an assault. Stugs get three shots in defensive fire, PzIVs get 5.

True, but if you've let your tanks get assaulted its already a failure that two extra shots won't help.

 Grey Templar wrote:
True, but if you've let your tanks get assaulted its already a failure that two extra shots won't help.

Actually, wouldn't that extra 2 shots help when you have a large-ish platoon? I mean statistically speaking 3 vs 5 is a fairly big difference.

Yeah, you'll have more shots to potentially pin your attackers, but its really just staving off the inevitable slaughter of your tanks.