Slitherine

Marder tank destroyers were supposed to be an immediate (ad hoc) response to T-34 tanks and especially KV-1, with which they were so big problems in 1941
Marders were widely used in late spring, summer and autumn of 1942, in anticipation of new heavy tanks capable of fighting in Soviet tanks

Therefore, I think that Marders should be cheaper, also in terms of CPs (I think they should cost 4 CPs), and besides, the introduction of new StuG F/8 and G (AT versions) should be postponed to winter 1942-43 (the last two-three scenarios in PK) or this StuGs could be available in 1942, but should be much more expensive than Marders, and only in 1943 should get cheaper
Another issue is Baukommando Becker's spec is available too late (should be available since March 1942)
Then this specialization would finally make sense after such changes and would be used by the players.

about StuG F, F/8 and G versions from Wikipedia:
"StuG III Ausf. F: (Sd.Kfz 142/1; March–September 1942, 366 produced) The first real up-gunning of the StuG, this version uses the longer 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/43 gun. Firing armour-piercing Panzergranat-Patrone 39, the StuK 40 L/43 could penetrate 91 mm of armour inclined 30 degrees from vertical at 500 m, 82 mm at 1,000 m, 72 mm at 1,500 m, 63 mm at 2,000 m, allowing the Ausf. F to engage most Soviet armoured vehicles at normal combat ranges. This change marked the StuG as being more of a tank destroyer than an infantry support vehicle. An exhaust fan was added to the rooftop to evacuate fumes from spent shells, to enable the firing of continuous shots. Additional 30 mm armour plates were welded to the 50 mm frontal armour from June 1942, making the frontal armour 80 mm thick. From June 1942, Ausf. F were mounted with approximately 13 inch (334 mm to be exact) longer 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48 gun. Firing above mentioned ammunition, longer L/48 could penetrate 96 mm, 85 mm, 74 mm, 64 mm respectively (30 degrees from vertical).
StuG III Ausf. F/8: (Sd.Kfz 142/1; September–December 1942, 250 produced) Introduction of an improved hull design similar to that used for the Panzer III Ausf. J / L with increased rear armour. This was 8th version of the Panzer III hull, thus the designation "F/8". This hull has towing hook holes extending from side walls. From October 1942, 30 mm thick plates of additional armour were bolted on to speed up the production line. From F/8, the 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48 gun was standard until the very last of the Ausf. G. Due to the lack of double baffle muzzle brakes, a few L/48 guns mounted on F/8s were fitted with the single baffle ball type muzzle brake used on the Panzer IV Ausf. F2/G.
StuG III Ausf. G (Sd.Kfz. 142/1; December 1942 – April 1945, ~8,423 produced, 142 built on Panzer III Ausf. M chassis, 173 converted from Panzer III): The final and by far the most common of the StuG series. Upper superstructure was widened: welded boxes on either sides were abandoned. This new superstructure design increased its height to 2160 mm. The back wall of the fighting compartment got straightened, and the ventilation fan on top of the superstructure was relocated to the back of the fighting compartment. From March 1943, the driver's periscope was abandoned. In February 1943, Alkett was joined by MIAG as a second manufacturer. From May 1943, side hull spaced armour plates (Schürzen) were fitted to G models; these were primarily intended for protection against Russian anti-tank rifles, but were also useful against hollow-charge ammunition. Side plates were retro-fitted to some Ausf. F/8 models, as they were to be fitted to all front line StuGs and other tanks by June 1943 in preparation for the battle of Kursk. Mountings for the Schürzen proved to be inadequate, as many were lost in the field. From March 1944, an improved mounting was introduced; as a result, side skirts are seen more often with late model Ausf G. From May 1943, 80 mm thick plates were used for frontal armour instead of two plates of 50 mm + 30 mm. However, a backlog of StuGs with completed 50 mm armour existed. For those, a 30 mm additional armour plate still had to be welded or bolted on until October 1943."

So these vehicles appear far too early in the game. StuG F may remain, but from the summer of 1942

A non-towed AT support that would cost only 4 cp? Would completely kill the usefulness of the towed ATs.

13obo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:32 am A non-towed AT support that would cost only 4 cp? Would completely kill the usefulness of the towed ATs.

I don't insist on this, but Marders have worse statistics than some towed AT

The tank destroyer CPs are indeed extremly standardized to always 5 points and don't follow a plausible logic.
You could already start complaining with the Panzerjager_IB that also costs 5 CP. Putting a none/lightly armored chassis under an anti-tank gun shouln't really cost more than 1 additional CP like giving infantry APCs for the same +1 CP.
In my mod, the StuGs also cost one CP less than a Pz.3/4. The Nashorn is already better armored with rear armor for the superstructure, what Marders often missed, hence it costs the same like a StuG. My Ferdinand/Elefant costs the same CP like a Tiger I as it much better armored. Dunno what I'm going to do with the Tiger II and Jagdtiger CPs later.

Horst wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:44 pm The tank destroyer CPs are indeed extremly standardized to always 5 points and don't follow a plausible logic.
You could already start complaining with the Panzerjager_IB that also costs 5 CP. Putting a none/lightly armored chassis under an anti-tank gun shouln't really cost more than 1 additional CP like giving infantry APCs for the same +1 CP.
In my mod, the StuGs also cost one CP less than a Pz.3/4. The Nashorn is already better armored with rear armor for the superstructure, what Marders often missed, hence it costs the same like a StuG. My Ferdinand/Elefant costs the same CP like a Tiger I as it much better armored. Dunno what I'm going to do with the Tiger II and Jagdtiger CPs later.

Good point, Panzerjaeger IB is the best example of underdevelopment of the purchase and repair system in OoB in many aspects

marder with 4 cps wont overwhelm other td, i think.
marder is the kind of glass cannon unit i have never used in any games. even appear sooner without spec, i wont buy them. Back up infantry with pak 5 cm is enough for early t-34 wave

In this game SP-AT has no real advantage, unless it has enough armor to be used as 2nd line tank OR if it has artillery switch for ranged fire.. A proper AT can be concealed, for ambush. Greatest damage caused in the game

Admiral_Horthy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:08 pm In this game SP-AT has no real advantage, unless it has enough armor to be used as 2nd line tank OR if it has artillery switch for ranged fire.. A proper AT can be concealed, for ambush. Greatest damage caused in the game

"sp-at" what does it mean? self propelled ?

The point is to use this specialization finally
The Marders were in fact a salvation for the German infantry in the summer of 1942
Of course, it must be taken into account that the Soviets had much less heavy and medium tanks at that time than in 1941, but nevertheless, it should be done to create in the game a certain state of "necessity" to use Marders by players

A good player can properly (and succesfully) use any available weapon ...

I would say that the must diffused Marder in late war was Marder IIIM and it’s not in OOB rooster, I hope it will be in Endsieg!

In-real Marders and their kin (JPz I, M3 GMC, Su-57, TACAM, etc) were mobile, that was their advantage. Quickly moved in position, reacting to threat - quick retreat, no concealment. Offensively usually dead. They are definitely not Assault Guns but just a self propelled gun. So they should get the quick retreat and the defensive treat as well. In return I would lower their CP usage for sure and give the close support treat (which we discussed another thread).

Admiral_Horthy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:00 pm In-real Marders and their kin (JPz I, M3 GMC, Su-57, TACAM, etc) were mobile, that was their advantage. Quickly moved in position, reacting to threat - quick retreat, no concealment. Offensively usually dead. They are definitely not Assault Guns but just a self propelled gun. So they should get the quick retreat and the defensive treat as well. In return I would lower their CP usage for sure and give the close support treat (which we discussed another thread).

I've recently read a large article in a specialist magazine about the Marders on the Eastern Front. Of course, I agree that these vehicles perform better in defensive actions, but their use in the Fall Blau Operation can be considered as a moderate success.
The Wehrmacht had no choice - for lack of better equipment, Marders had to be used in various situations ... In addition, we are constantly overestimating the Red Army, which had really poor personnel, especially in tank units and the well-trained Marder's crew was able to eliminate 5-10 T-34 and safely retreat from the battlefield under the cover of your own infantry
However, I find your proposals as very interesting

In PzC, there is an initiative value that allows units to do damage first before the opponent with lower ini does. This helps all these hardly armoured units like Marder, Nashorn, and especially the Emil a lot to perform better in a direct confrontation.
In OoB, there is no such shoot-first advantage, thus it reduces the effectiveness of good-gun-but-bad-armor units too much. They can rather only serve well in a second-line role or as low-eff coup-de-grace unit.
In my mod, I’ve also given all these low-armor at-, aa-, pure flamethrower-, and arty-units the quick-retreat trait to compensate for the lack of initiative and protection.

kondi754 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:10 pmThe Marders were in fact a salvation for the German infantry in the summer of 1942

Yay, these 3 screenshots illustrate how Marders can back up front line units and be completely IMMUNE to getting hurt themselves, old hands will already know the tactic, but I like to make my posts noob-friendly..
In the top pic a 10-strength German infantry unit is caught in the open by a T-34 which blasts 5 strength points from it.

But in the second pic this inf unit is backed up by a Marder II, and in the exchange of fire the Marder has given the T-34 a bloody nose by stripping 2 points from it, and the Marder isn't even scratched because it was firing over/through the infantry.

Bottom pic- the hurt infantry retreats but of course the Marder can quickly scuttle into position to back it up again and the T-34 will be bled a little more.
Even better, a fresh German infantry unit can be brought up.
This is the classic use of SPAT units in OOB which makes them worth their weight in gold, the trick is not to attack enemy tanks directly with SPAT most of the time (because SPAT armour is usually weaker), but to use them to back up units and let the enemy knock himself out by attacking the backed-up units..
(Towed AT guns do a similar valuable backup job but take time to deploy and their crews are vulnerable to artillery and airstrikes etc)

Good presentation, Spike
Additionally, Marders were sometimes the only AT support available for inf units.
Eg. North Africa, where only 7 StuGs fought: 3 StuG III D at Gazala (May, 1942) and 4 StuG III F/8 in Tunisia (April, 1943)
There were a few dozen Marders II and III instead, available to Rommel in 1942-43
There will be available only Marders for purchase in my historical Mod, StuGs only as aux units (weakened)

kondi754 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:21 am Good presentation, Spike..

Thanks mate, I've decided to test every SPAT unit in the game and had better start a new thread called "Self-propelled anti-tank units (SPAT)"

So this is why I can't find Marders in game? Baukommando_Becker spec has wrong available dates?

Marder_I: 9/6/1942
Marder_II: 19/7/1942
Marder_III: 19/7/1942
Baukommando_Becker: 8/1942