why buy armor?

[bhutnath]

I have played only a handful of games so far. Most games have been with lots of points (6k-30k) on large maps. The last few have been played with vis 80.

It seems to me that in a meeting engagement the tank is absolutely useless. You have barely 40 hexes or 2km to travel, turcks or apc will get your infatry there in 3 turns. Even if you fail to make it that far another 4-5 turns will get you there on foot with ease. Once close to the victory hexes, the infantry is best at holding ground.


lets take a look at the costs. A t90 is about 500 give an take 50 points. While an elite infantry company with gustav antitank (Indian force) comes for 270 points. In my experience, one tank cannot take ground from an infantry company even in open ground given the duration of these games. So for every tank the enemy can add atleast one company of basic infantry can be included. So even when tanks are accompanied by inf platoons one has enough infantry to fight em all.

Armor generaly dies with one successful shot.A couple of plattons of atgm troops over the course of the game will take their toll on enemy armor. While even a lowly infantry platoon takes a long time to find suppress and kill.

A single armored vehicle loss can cost one from 30-500 points. Loose half a company of expensive tanks in the course of the game and your 3k points down! compare this to loosing a whole battalion of inf (Indian) it cost only 270 x 4 = 1000 points.

I just cant seem to see any sense in buying armor. So folks help me out here, what is it about armored units that I am overlooking?

[Mobhack]

hmm - the usual lack of appreciation of the combined arms equation, I think is your problem. You talk tanks vs infantry, with absolutely no mention of the third arm of the triad - the artillery.

Tanks tend to be survivable vs HE (which is why they were developed in WW1) - whereas grunts are still at WW1 levels of protection versus HE.

So - try buying some arty as an antidote to dismounted infantry. (Plus - as arty is not restricted to having LOS, you can pound the ground on the approaches to objectives to discourage walking grunts approaching them).

As to "barely 40 hexes to cover" - then you could always try a wider and/or deeper map perhaps, if you think the default is too small?. (Preferences, map widh and height).

Cheers
Andy

[bhutnath]

I have been playing with max map sizes I think it 200x160. 32 hexes is what you have to travel in these large maps to reach the center, I suspect it may be much less in smaller maps. I do buy lots and lots of arty some time a whioe briade (15-25% of total points). The opponents typicaly has atleast a regiment some times two. Sure arty hurts but it doesnt completely kill the infantry. Even after few turns of bombardment it may get it to run, but then they can always come back. Arty becomes a double edge sword if you go mix it up close with the opponent. Once I have reached the v hexes and nearby forests, buildings and reverse slopes the onus of throwing me out of there is on the opponent. Here is where the infantry seems to shine for me.

the manual says that the rule of thumb for attacking a platoon is to do so with a company. It further suggests that a platton is considered a battery level target (arty). Now if you out number the enemy both in number of infantry platoons and arty (which you will if you have no armor and he does). I cant seem to understand how the armor will help take ground away from the numericaly superior infantry force.

Its true that HE doesnt kill tanks, but it will suppress the infantry allong with enemy tanks making your infantry difficult to spot for enemy armor. Drop enough on a tank and it will run. Becuase of the nature of the objective in meeting engagements the tanks mobility in my opinion seems of limited use against infantry 'hanging around' the v hexes in forests reverse slopes and buildings. Even if opposition manages to suppress your infantry with arty they still have to come and take ground, for which he will need infantry. However more likely than not he is going to be out numbered in arty too (besides being outnembered by the defending infantry force)

The thing is this, once the infantry has reached the victory hexes and nearby areas, it can camp in forest towns reverse slopes etc and exert influnce around the V-hexes. specialy if you have a couple of atgm hidden some where there. The onus of digging em out of there is upto the enemy.


btw, I have noticed even if the light trucks carying infantry is hit by any thing from machine guns, arty, direct tank shots the infantry take no or little damage and just pops out even if the truck blows up. I have never seen a platoon loose most of its men or get wiped out with the truck. I thought if a light trucks takes a direct 155mm shell, nothing would be left of it! if it gets raked by machine guns at 500m lots of infantry men should die?

They seem to make a great ride IMO. very cheap and fast. Sure they give you little protection from arty, but then getting hit doesnt do that much to the infantry any ways!! If you srvive 2-3 turns you are practicaly there to the center of the map. a m113 in Pakistan army cost from 33-35 points while a light truck costs 11.So while a mech platoon costs 850+ a rifle platoon with trucks will cost just 220+154 = 374. Allowing you to buy two companies and more for the price of 1 mech company (while retaining mobility of a mech company). Sure the apc also have machine guns that add to the firepower. Hoever they seem to die too easy in my experience to arty, atgm and tanks (as do light trucks, but atleast they cost 1/3!)

This brings me to another point. It seems that the biggest nemesis of a tanks isnt another tank, its atgm troops!??

I know I am missing some thing here, for surely the tanks are very usefull in real life. Are they under modelled in SP? the tank HE shots dont seem to hurt that much. You fire shells after shell at infantry and not 'wipe them out' even if they are in the open.

[Artur]

bhutnath said:


This brings me to another point. It seems that the biggest nemesis of a tanks isnt another tank, its atgm troops!??





You are right about this. ATGM is greater threat to an armor espevially infantry ATGM well concealed and well dug in.
It is like how deadly the ATGs were to armour in WWII.

IMHO unless a very open terrain (and even there you have to have infantry to a certain extent) your force is (should be) infantry heavy. of course not an only infantry force.

I attach here a document written by myself for the SPWaW Depot academy. While it has a very few minor SPWaW specific things the principles apply to SPWWII and SPMBT as well.

Good gaming,
Artur.

[Artur]

I also suggest you to do the following experiment.

Play a generated battle in 2010 in a not very dense terrain.
1.Set one side to Germany the other side to Russia.
2.Buy troops for both sides for equal points.
3.Buy infantry only to the opponet(AI).
4.Buy infantry mainly to your force BUT also buy some cheap(without TI) APCs for yourself as well, Fuchs with 30mm if you are the Germans or some BTR with equal punch if you are with the Russians. Let's say cca 2-3 APCs per infantry company.
5. When you play keep the APCs well behind the range of the infantry AT platforms (except ATGMS but you will find ATGMs expensive relative to these cheap pieces of metal). Spray every exposed infantry with your mobile MG nests in form of APCs. You will see the difference http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

"Oh but then I could buy stronger armor to oppose the APCs" - you may say. And the the story continues as you see http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif.

Good gaming,
Artur.

[Artur]

Finally some more about the usage of armor in modern enviroment. You experienced it right, it is very unforgiving to make any major mistake with your armor units in the recent era (from the 80ies till near future).

What you can do though.
1. Keep distance from infantry, that is good enough to simply negate all threats except the ATGMs.Tanks are devastating enough from greater distance as well.
2. Keep infantry near the tanks to scout for mines and protect the tank from sneaking enemy infantry.
3. Against ATGMs buy armor with VIRSS or ARENA they are ATGM decoys.
4. Smoke the area. If your tanks have TI equipment at least you can negate the cheap ATGMs which do not have TI. And those ATGM systems that do have TI capability they are not cheap as well.
5. Scout with cheaper armor, it can spring ambushes.
6. Keep air defense units near by to prevent helicopters having a shot at your tanks.
7. Use terrain to provide cover for your maneuvering armor. Advance in valleys, not on hill tops.
8. Deploy in keyholed positions (positions with narrow line of sight) that way only a few enemy units can shoot at you, and it is also hardes to spot your unit.
9.Use artillery to suppress the infantry units. While artillery does not kill them it is good enough to prevent them fireing back or at least have less shooting opportunities.Finish the softened infantry with your infantry or armour. Armour is also better to soften infantry than killing them, but it does also a decent job in infantry killing.

In the modern battlefield armor is still an important factor but there are a lot of threats that have to be negated in order to keep them alive.

Artur.

[bhutnath]

Thank you for your extensive response.

I read your article, good stuff.

I recognize the advantage armor and IFV can bring. However, I wonder if in game point terms if they are worth it? In games with large number of points the vicotry hex points comprise of only a fraction of total points. Loss of a single tank can cost one any where from 300-600 points. So loss of say 5 t90 tanks would cost about 2500-3000 points! very diffult to accumulate this kind of points against an opponent with just infantry tucks and arty units.

So even if you fail to capture the V-hexes, I would suspect you can at least draw the game by geting few hugh value armored units with your atgm and arty?

-Ak

[Mobhack]

The point of warfare is to destroy the enemy forced in the field without suffering undue loses yourself.

"Victory hexes" are a simplistic game method of pointing out to (probably civilian) players (and the AI) where might be a good place to go and/or defend, really. Like those paintball gun games where someone takes the flag to "win".

They also help the AI decide when to throw in the towel http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

There are no such things as "terrain objectives" in modern warfare. Terrain is only of value if it gives you an advantage or denial of it from the enemy confounds any such for him. There may be phase lines and reporting points, but those are to shape the battle plan, not "must throw a million troops at it WW1 style" things.

(It is also a normal point in civilian wargames that these objectives are common to both sides as well! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Look at the points awarded for v-hexes as a bonus, or "gravy" to sweep up after or during the real mission of deleting enemy units (while protecting yours) as appropriate. (while remeberig that both you and the opponent will eventually concentrate in those areas) The paintball type "take the flag to win, regardless of cost" is not appropriate here.

If playing PBEM human against human - you really should consider having no artificial "victory flags" at all. Then you can concentrate on the proper find,fix and strike process on the enemy forces, which is a different task altogether without these "hint markers" plonked on the map! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

Cheers
Andy

[Thexder]

bhutnath said:
So even if you fail to capture the V-hexes, I would suspect you can at least draw the game by geting few hugh value armored units with your atgm and arty?

-Ak



IMO using the standard scoring system in SP doesn't make sense as it undervalues the VLs. What I've found usefull is to use "Weasel scoring" chart that gives VLs their proper value. I send it with this message, I'm sure you'll find it useful:).

You might also want to check Weasel's new experimental rules here: http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/showthread.php?tid=37617

One must make own rules for the battles in order to make them as realistic and enjoyable as possible. In MBT arty and infantry are too good in value/price and armor many times next to useless as you've said. In my battles I use the following set of rules, which I've find out to rise the enjoyment in another level: http://koti.mbnet.fi/thexder/Steel/steelrulesIII.html

Cheers,
Jukka

[Thexder]

Here's the file...

[bhutnath]

rremoving the v-hexes or setting their value to 1 souhnds like an excellent idea!


thanks for the links. The 'rules' look intersting. I am also looking forward to the new patch and see how that might work out. I am not familiar with the logic of 'valuing' pieces in MBT. Surely it must have gone through a lot scrutiny from the community at large? After all its at the heart of SP as a game.

I suspect it based on the capabilities of each units in terms of thermals armor number of ammunitions etc. However, it might be very difficult to value these pieces based on their actual use in battle.

I do find arty dirt cheap specialy if you allow the logistical support of ammo dump you can drop cluster munitions all day long. prob a bit gamey as the above links suggest. But then I have never even fired a rifle (well I have fired a few rounds from 22mm rifle in colledge!) and dont know a think about military except they get a very large share of the taxes I pay. I do understand the rules of the game and can only plan to play according to the rules. What I am saying is that I have no choice but to rely on other experts to develop a set of rules that works as a best compromise between reality and gameplay. But given the current set of rules, I am still not convinced that armor is a worthwhile purchase.


Just the other day I was thinking of using the m190a2 (not sure of the name, the 203mm sp arty US) as a close support unit for it costs barely 30-35 points!! Even the cheapest tank in the pakistan armed forces - m4 patton of the 1950-60 era come for 150+ points. Sure it can tanks, but in 2010 I just want it for it close support.

Been thinking of using howitze with apc as a mobile fire support team right up in the front. For no other reason but they are so damn cheap.

I dont know about advanced nations, but surely most countries cannot afford to use their best 155mm arty is such fashion!

One of the points in suggested rules was no ammo reloads for helos in ME. I think that would make helos rather expensive for their limited atgm capacity! specialy if facing active defence equiped armor! I never buy fighters for just this reason, too damn expensive and too easily shot down.

[Artur]

bhutnath said:
I recognize the advantage armor and IFV can bring. However, I wonder if in game point terms if they are worth it? In games with large number of points the vicotry hex points comprise of only a fraction of total points. Loss of a single tank can cost one any where from 300-600 points. So loss of say 5 t90 tanks would cost about 2500-3000 points! very diffult to accumulate this kind of points against an opponent with just infantry tucks and arty units.




Try your theory in practice (PBEM). There are some seasoned players at the Blitzkrieg club.

I also think the victory hexes should be at least one magnitude higher than tzhey are now. However you still can have good battles by eliminating the opposing force http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

IMHO a unit is worth as much as it helps you in realizing your battle plan:).I think buying only expensive top gear will lead to defeat most of the time, but mixing it with cheaper units some expensive units have their place in a winning team.

Artur.

[bhutnath]

it just strck me, that part of the reason why I find armored units so expensive is that one can keep atgm troops supplied through ammo dumps/trucks etc. But is that realistic? Can and do atgm troops recieve replenishment in battles (within matter of minutes?) I would hazaard guess, no! I suspect it same for artillery. Surely they dont get replenished so quickly as in game. I suspect ammo dumps may not be as near as 3-4 km from the front in real battles?

So do the ammo dump/trucks etc make the game unrealistic? Withought them, the value of armored units would go up dramaticaly in my eyes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
But then the sams deplete their ammo very fast, surely most SAM batteries have more than 3 shots per launcher at hand. THey must not have to waite like half to full day for more replenishments to arrive from rear. So select units be allowed ammo dump? but the ammo dumps themsleves have unlimited ammo of all kinds so this could allow one launcher to launch 20-30 missileso in a 40 turn game (4 hours of fighting), this sound like an unrealistic number.

I suspect the key to improvement may lie with developing a better logistic system?
-Ak

[Weasel]

bhutnath said:
rremoving the v-hexes or setting their value to 1 souhnds like an excellent idea!






I just finished a game where we reduced the battle points from 2:1 (assault) to 1.5:1 and the flags to 1 point each. It is the first assault I have played where they assaulting player actually lost by a minor. Normally all others have been medium wins.

So I think the flag reduction and point reduction made a big difference.

[Listy]

A note on ammo trucks:

A switched on opponent will put you in a world of hurt if you clump your blokes around ammo supplies.

You mentioned arty with ammo dumps. Arty will give away its position by smoke. A lot of players I know keep an eye on the back field for just such a target. So does the AI I believe.

When an ammo dump goes bang its very enthusiastic about it.

[bhutnath]

Listy said:
A note on ammo trucks:

A switched on opponent will put you in a world of hurt if you clump your blokes around ammo supplies.

You mentioned arty with ammo dumps. Arty will give away its position by smoke. A lot of players I know keep an eye on the back field for just such a target. So does the AI I believe.

When an ammo dump goes bang its very enthusiastic about it.



I would like to know if the arty becomes visible (not just smoke) after a few rounds of firing. Here is what I have been doing, if I get a SP arty system or multiple barrel rocket laucnh system like the b-21, I buy a dump per vehicle . Shoot and run to dump, reposition, shoot run to dump. Most of the time the opponent's counter battery fire drops on nothing.

Recently I have been wondering if I cant get cheaper but towed arty system which not only are equaly effective but offer me a continous barrage capability which i loose with scoot and shoot.

So I buy myself a arty brigade (3-4 regiment) with one regiment of same callibre guns with cluster munitions. I buy one dump per cluster mun equiped tube and 1 dump per platoon of regular arty.

Then I scatter them around all over the map. Since a dump can supply over 2 hex the regular arty platoon is arange in a 'traible' where each arty is 2 hexes away from the a dump. The expensive cluster mun equipped guns are all alone by themselves with their own private dumps! (but 2 hex away to escape blast if dump is destroyed)

Each time I fire I use some guns to add more smoke on the map. Now, here is where I dont know if the guns become visible with few rounds, for otherwise there would be about 60-90 odd, smoked hex on the back part of the map within 2 turns of firing with only 48 or so of them containing an arty piece. I do loose some arty in the course of the game, but so far my opponents have given up on taking them out. One advantage of keeping all guns of the same callibre is the opponent has to guess which are the cheap non cluster and which are the expensive ones!

I havent played too many games yet, so i suspect there may be a lot of learning to come by the way of a game with seasoned opponent.
-Ak

[bhutnath]

I would like to know if the arty becomes visible (not just smoke) after a few rounds of firing. Here is what I have been doing, if I get a SP arty system or multiple barrel rocket laucnh system like the b-21, I buy a dump per vehicle . Shoot and run to dump, reposition, shoot run to dump. Most of the time the opponent's counter battery fire drops on nothing.

Recently I have been wondering if I cant get cheaper but towed arty system which not only are equaly effective but offer me a continous barrage capability which i loose with scoot and shoot.

So I buy myself a arty brigade (3-4 regiment) with one regiment of same callibre guns with cluster munitions. I buy one dump per cluster mun equiped tube and 1 dump per platoon of regular arty.

Then I scatter them around all over the map. Since a dump can supply over 2 hex the regular arty platoon is arange in a 'traible' where each arty is 2 hexes away from the a dump. The expensive cluster mun equipped guns are all alone by themselves with their own private dumps! (but 2 hex away to escape blast if dump is destroyed)

Each time I fire I use some guns to add more smoke on the map. Now, here is where I dont know if the guns become visible with few rounds, for otherwise there would be about 60-90 odd, smoked hex on the back part of the map within 2 turns of firing with only 48 or so of them containing an arty piece. I do loose some arty in the course of the game, but so far my opponents have given up on taking them out. One advantage of keeping all guns of the same callibre is the opponent has to guess which are the cheap non cluster and which are the expensive ones!

I havent played too many games yet, so i suspect there may be a lot of learning to come by the way of a game with seasoned opponent.
-Ak

[RVPERTVS]

bhutnath said:
I just cant seem to see any sense in buying armor. So folks help me out here, what is it about armored units that I am overlooking?



The main ability of tanks is the move/attack factor IMHO; I mean, unlike any other non-inf unit in the game, MBTs are tank killing equipment that are able to move and fire several shots in the same turn that´s a hell of a capability, I can´t remember all the situations where a couple of tanks and some lucky shots saved my flanked *** thanks to that move and fire ability http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Their main weakness, however, is their poor LOS range against infantry ambushes and atgms, that´s why you want to keep them escorted (and thier paths scouted) by inf. all the time unless you want to see them toasted; cheap mounted infantry does fine.

From my personal experience, tanks in winspmbt are modeled and intended to provide close support to infantry (either advancing or defending)and as main tank killers. When your infantry and artillery are compromised your tanks are a very versatile platform you can rely on for last minute/suprise and /or exploit maneuvers, something you can´t do that easily with your infantry or mobile atgms alone.

One classic example: tanks can remain hidden behind a slope, wait for the target to be supressed by other means, aproach, fire, and get back to the slope again.

Tanks are also very good for sneak/flank/destroy soft echleon targets operations, again, something you can´t do at the same tempo with infantry. Without tanks your tactics tend to be more static, adding tanks to the ecuation provides endless possibilities (Yeaph..I´m a "tankie" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif)

Just my two cents

Regards
Robert

[Smersh]

yeah, even when ATGMs arrive, tanks still remain one of the best anti-tank platforms.

[PlasmaKrab]

Well, as Robert says, tanks have over ATGM units the advantage of mobility, armor and more fire opportunities. SPMBT is very unforgiving with the firing rate of ATGM units, so they can be used nearly only in defense.
One other advantage of tanks over missile tank hunters: larger ammo allowance! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
10-15 ATGMs are disposed of really quickly, particularly against mobile targets (not mentioning the 4 rounds of foot ATGM teams), while a tank can pack 30-40 AT rounds or more and make good use of them from a decent position.
So I tend to use tanks as the most versatile and resilient mobile platform around. Makes good use as long as you keep them in a balanced force mix and don't push your luck. Oh, and some kind of technological edge over the enemy's best (at least being able to punch through his best armor) can also help...

[pdoktar]

Three words against ATGMs: ARENA, VIRSS, Mortars. Besides tanks speed, versatility (HE and AP and MG capability) and armor (especially versus the most common type of artillery, mortars) are key ingredients of a balanced battlegroup.

[Uncle_Joe]

To be fair, I dont think anyone is saying that armor isnt useful. It has been amply demostrated by people that it can be VERY useful and fulfills a distinct role.

That said, I think the gist of his argument is whether its worth the points or not in the game. I see people referencing the mobility of armor to shore up a flank etc, but the question is whether you would have an exposed flank in the first place with another company and change of infantry and support instead of a few tanks.

With WW2-era equipment, a platoon of tanks is roughly the same cost as a company of infantry (until you start getting into the super-heavies Tiger/Tiger IIs etc). That seems like a pretty worthwhile trade-off. But for say, a NATO vs Pact circa 1990ish scenario, a platoon of M1A1s cost about as much as TWO companies of standard US infantry. So are you really getting TWO companies worth of value out of those 4 tanks? I dont know....

Obviously if you are on the attack and time is short, the dismounts are not likely to get to the objective easily, but discouting that type of set-up, are those tanks really worth the cost? They are far more likely to be outflanked despite their mobility and they are far more susceptible to 'bad luck'. A single mis-step or mistake and you could lose a 1/4 your force in one swoop. By contrast, it would take a significant amount of time and firepower to eliminate half of a company of infantry.

There does come a point of diminishing returns on infantry though. Arty will wreck a densely packed group of two infantry companies as easily as it will wreck one. So in a 10000 point battle or so, going with massed dismounts probably isnt terribly cost effective either (unless its a big map). But for the smaller engagements, I do agree to a point with the OP that with standard 'armor' it can be hard to justify the cost to field them.

Personally, I think the cost of armor scales up too quickly relative the the cost of infantry in SPMBT (when compared to SPWW2). I mean do modern tanks kill infantry THAT much better than WW2 equivalents? I dont believe that is quite the case. And by contrast, dismounted infantry can have a lot more capability to threaten modern armor than their WW2 counter-parts, further increasing the disparity. Finally, the cost for anti-tank obstacles/mines doesnt seem to scale up with their effectiveness either. They are just as useful vs modern armor that costs 10-15x what their WW2 brethren cost yet their cost is relatively fixed.

Just some food for thought... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[RVPERTVS]

Uncle_Joe said:
That said, I think the gist of his argument is whether its worth the points or not in the game.



Absolutely right! My opinion: yes, armor is relatively expensive compared to infantry (in wspmbt).

[Smersh]

It also depends on the era and the type of infantry formation. In the 1945-1965. A tank company is usually twice the cost of a mechenized infantry company, this doesn't seem unreasonable.

in the later eras, where IFV come into the fold, they are also quite expensive. So unless your buying only leg infantry (which puts you at a disadvantage on larger size maps) the price of infantry and armour is fairly well-balanced.

Most modern infantry post-WW2 fight with a APC or IFV. Unless your playing insurgency or korea, veitnam type games you should be buying mech. troops.

[narwan]

This argument comes up in different variations across the different boards discussing both MBT and WW2. Well known variants are debates focusing on cost differential between specific tanks. The argument goes something like 'a T34 is too expensive compared to a king tiger as you need 3 to have a chance of taking it out and it costs only 30% less'. The fallacy in this reasoning is that it focus on only two units or groups of units while you should look at ALL units in the entire game. For example, a T34 and king tiger are more less equaly capable of taking out a platoon of light infantry (no serious AT capacity). So from that perspective both types of tank need to be of near equal cost.
Which brings us back to the argument here, the cost of armor vs infantry. Don't forget you have to be able to distinguish between different types of armor too. Reducing the cost differential between armor and infantry will also reduce the cost differential between different types of armor. So in no time people would come complaining that (for example) their T72's are too expensive compared to the M1A1.
Then there's helicopters. If armor goes down in price, tank busting choppers should go down too. But then shouldn't sams go down in price too? And if sams go down shouldn't aircraft? And if COIN aircraft go down in price shouldn't infantry type units go down too?
The point being that the whole cost structure is based on all types of units interacting with each other. Not just picking two out and start comparing those. Then there's also the element of getting the right tool for the right job. Often armor is NOT the right tool. Not in the game and not in real life. They are there to take out other expensive pieces of kit, not to hunt down individual troopers. If you're faced with a battle (terrain) were infantry will dominate, and that will be quite often, get mostly infantry. Having the fanciest and most modern piece of kit is never a garantuee for succes, on the contrary it can make you vulenrable.

Doesn't mean the cost structure is perfect as it is now, there have been significant changes throughout different versions of both games but it's a very tricky business to get the balance right.


Narwan

[DRG]

Uncle_Joe said:
Personally, I think the cost of armor scales up too quickly relative the the cost of infantry in SPMBT (when compared to SPWW2).




RVPERTVS said:

Absolutely right! My opinion: yes, armor is relatively expensive compared to infantry (in wspmbt).




For those of you who may have been paying attention to the information provided in the thread about WinSPMBTv3 you may recall I mentioned that infantry is more expensive in V3 than it was in the last release so you guys can debate this further if you like but the change is a done deal.

An infantry squad that cost 14 points in the previous release of winspmbt costs 22 points now in V3. The actual percentage increase varies from unit to unit based on the weapons and becasue we are using relatively low numbers to begin with but the example cited above is approx a 58% increase. Another squad ( taken at random from the US OOB ) that cost 11 points in the previous version now costs 18 points which works out to about a 63% increase so everyone worried that infantry is too cheap can relax. The issue was dealt with quite awhile ago.

As Narwan said above. It's a tricky business balancing this just so. BECAUSE it's not just unit A and Unit B that need to be in harmony and I'll bet everyone on this forum has a different opinion on what that "harmony" should be.

Don

*********EDIT******

Here's a good example of the increase. In the previous version of the game ( the one you have now ) in October 1983 a British Rifle Company costs 250 points. In V3 it's 328. A 31% increase. Not all units go up as high as 60%

[RVPERTVS]

DRG said:
For those of you who may have been paying attention to the information provided in the thread about WinSPMBTv3 you may recall I mentioned that infantry is more expensive in V3 than it was in the last release so you guys can debate this further if you like but the change is a done deal.




That´s good to hear Don, I´m impressed how commited you guys are with the game´s development; maybe with this change and the one marked with number 13 things would be balanced up.

The issue regarding armour cost(I guess) has to do with the fact that infantry was modeled much more capable and resilient than tanks, meaining you had to spend more ammo and time to kill infantry while the cost was much inferior. Let´s wait to see how v3 handles these issues.

Regards
Robert

[bhutnath]

sorry folks, as an auther of this thread I have been away from the discussion due to problems with my PC. But it seems most points have all ready been thrashed out http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

(some of the points are excellent and thank you for the discussion!)

I did whant to clarify, that so far my experience with SP is very limited. In some (recent) games I have been able to successfuly win by employing only infantry (with light trucks) and lots and lots of arty (160x200 map 15k points India-pak 2010). The idea generaly is to have an advance allong the entire map and force the enemy armor to come to aid of infantry that would be badly out numbered. Use infantry to spot and fix armor and then cluster their collective rears to oblivion. The cluster ammo equiped arty with dumps/trucks seems to make up for lack of armor.
There is often enough atgm and arty troops to implement move and scoot and yet cover 'interested' areas thoughout the game. This helps me avoid enemy mortars and counter battery fire. I realy on reaction fire to get those damn pesky tanks and leave my grunts to the fighting during my turn.

(did I mention I buy no air?)

One thing I have noticed is that infantry traveling in apc often dies with the apc but infantry traveling in light truck will simply jump out with no or little damage. I find the light tr a much better ride. It doesnt make sense to me? is it a bug??

and is it just me, for in these large point games I buy logistic (ammo dump/trucks crates) worht almost 10% of my points!?
-Ak

[narwan]

bhutnath said:

One thing I have noticed is that infantry traveling in apc often dies with the apc but infantry traveling in light truck will simply jump out with no or little damage. I find the light tr a much better ride. It doesnt make sense to me? is it a bug??





Dutch troops deployed to Iraq (not there anymore though) and Afghanistan used mostly unarmored transports just for that reason. Armored vehicles keep the blast effects from penetrating hits inside the vehicle (the armor preventing it to escape) causing extensive damage to occupants. That doesn't happen with unarmored vehicles. While those are more vulnerable to for example mg fire, personal body armor meant that casualties from such fire remained low and usually not life threatening. The vehicles were often write offs when receiving lots of fire, but the occupants remained relatively safe.

Narwan

[Uncle_Joe]

For those of you who may have been paying attention to the information provided in the thread about WinSPMBTv3 you may recall I mentioned that infantry is more expensive in V3 than it was in the last release so you guys can debate this further if you like but the change is a done deal.



From the looks of it, your increase seems to be pretty good. I certainly dont think it was horribly off before, but a few builds ago the prices of the more capable armor really started to increase while the cost of infantry stayed static. That was bound to create some sort of inequity.

From your example, a ~30% increase sounds about right. That would mean you could get an infantry coy and change for the price of some first line MBTs. That sounds closer to the pricing of the WW2 equipment which I think is pretty accurate in reflecting their capabilities.

[pdoktar]

A Light truck inf company will run into serious trouble, if hit even by 60mm mortars. Trucks will be destroyed and infantry will jump off, not taking maybe much damge, but suppression and thus halting the advance, to get hammered again with those pesky 60mm the next turn. An APC company will survive much better light caliber barrages and keep infantry inside, thus not stopping and having a good chance of avoiding the next barrage.

[DRG]

Uncle_Joe said:

From the looks of it, your increase seems to be pretty good. I certainly dont think it was horribly off before, but a few builds ago the prices of the more capable armor really started to increase while the cost of infantry stayed static. That was bound to create some sort of inequity.

From your example, a ~30% increase sounds about right. That would mean you could get an infantry coy and change for the price of some first line MBTs. That sounds closer to the pricing of the WW2 equipment which I think is pretty accurate in reflecting their capabilities.




Here are some examples then. From the game with Country Training ON. In the infantry company examples I've shown the cost range from lowest to highest as with infantry coys there are always different ways of picking you force

UK Infantry Co 1988 328 - 351 points.
A Chieftan Mk11 is 371 points


Russian Infantry Co 1988 301 - 437 points.
A T-80BV is 294

German Jaeger Kp 347-369 points
A Leo 2A4 is 419 ( the 2a4 has TI which drives the cost up a 2a1 is 306 points )

A US Rifle Co [-AT] in 1988 ( without all the Dragon ATMs ) is 375 - 411 points. ( with the Dragons it goes up to just over 1100 points )
An Abrams will cost from 376 - 416 points

Those are just a few examples but yes roughly a company of infantry is equal to a MBT now. The difference in pricing structure between WinSPWW2 and WinSPMBT is because we fine tuned the price calc when we released the last version of WinSPWW2 and this release catches MBT up with that. The patch for WW2 that will be out in a couple months will bring WW2 in sync with the improvements made to WinSPMBTv3 and then both games will be in sync

Don

[Uncle_Joe]

OK, I've been playing with V3.0 a bit and I think the 'problem' is still present.

What I see is integral to the issue is the 'stealthiness' of AT assets. ATGMs and RR teams etc are almost impossible to spot until they have fired a few times (often even for Infantry and especially if they have even a point of suppression). This greatly magnifies their effects and renders most lighter vehicles/APCs not worth their cost in the face of massed dismounts.

I've been playing a lot of small point meeting engagements (1990, Sov vs WGerm). I tend to buy a nice little combined arms force (Coy of Mech Infantry, a few tanks, some mortars or arty) while the AI usually buys a horde of dismounted troops (with a good group of AT assets like RRs and ATGM teams).

And the result is generally the same. I can take control of key areas and whittle down the initial attacks, but then eventually get overrun in a flood of infantry. Yes, they suffer 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 losses in manpower, but that is irrelevant since they are resiliant enough to keep on attacking. Vehicles are nearly useless in any form of European terrain in situations like this. All it takes is one misstep and a 99% chance ATGM smokes your AFV. Even if its just a glimpse for a half of a second in LOS, that ATGM has a 99% chance of a hit (which I also find very odd).

Once up close, nearly every squad has the capacity to kill light armor and APCs out to 400/500m. Again, it takes turns and turns of pounding to knock out a platoon of infantry costing around 65-70 points, a but single ~40 point APC is annihilated almost instantly by infantry.

The fact that the AT teams are 'stealthy' doesnt help the situation IMO. Its makes it quite possible for those teams to move across fields or other light terrain and get multiple shots off before drawing return fire. Finally, add in the fact that especially in smaller battles, there are considerably less pre-plotted arty points (a good change overall IMO). So, arty is FAR less responsive now at routing out infantry or reacting to the changing battle.

Note that if I go with an Infantry-heavy force, its still extremely easy to defeat similar enemy forces. With a BN and change of infantry vice a company of mech infantry, its usually a cake-walk to win.

I dont know what to say in terms of point cost and whatnot, but to me, its still pretty clear that all things equal (ie, not needing to cover huge stretches of ground) that massed dismounts will tend to win out over a more balanced force for cost.

[wulfir]

Uncle_Joe said:
I've been playing a lot of small point meeting engagements (1990, Sov vs WGerm).



Uncle,

what kind of settings are you using for your MEs?
Map size, build points...?

[DRG]

Or. better still, post an example of a game you have set up ( or even a mid battle save )

Then we can see what you see

Don

[Uncle_Joe]

what kind of settings are you using for your MEs?
Map size, build points...?



About Company sized engagements:

30x50 map
~1250-2000 points
all realism settings on
no tank-heavy AI
standard maps (I usually 're-roll' any that have water or are complete city/forest maps)

I dont have any saves at the moment (I guess there are no 'layered' autosaves anywhere, right?).

But its easy to see IMO. Just fire up a battle with those parameters (say, 1990 Sov vs WGerm...take a Sov Motor Rifle combined arms force).

I'm not saying its impossible to win but I find it FAR easier to win if I also go with a foot infantry-heavy force than with any form of combined arms force. This has been my experience with MBT for a while now (again, excluding conditions that dont allow for foot troops).

And yes, you can tailor a force to beat infantry, but that's not the point IMO. The issue is whether it simply costs too much to field mechanized forces vice much larger leg-mobile forces. I tend to think 'yes'.

[narwan]

30x50 map? Why buy mech units? And not just from a game perspective. Mech infantry is still INFANTRY. They fight dismounted. The are mechanised to give them strategical and operational flexibility. That is not needed on a 30x50 map. You can assume the apc's to have delivered them to battlefield and be just off board.

That map size is simply way too small for the force you selected (both in type and points).

Narwan

[wulfir]

I agree with narwan - too small map.

[Uncle_Joe]

30x50 is what 1.5km by 2.5km?

That is PLENTY of frontage for a company-sized engagement (especially Soviet/Opfor frontage).

So you just assume that the APCs never fight with their infantry? Doesnt that run sort of counter to WarPact doctrine? The Infantry should be advancing ahead of the APCs, but not more than few hundred meters (and only if encountering AT resistance).

I would submit that if the APCs are not intended to fight then they surely cost too much for glorified taxis. But that aside, having tank support still cripples you cost-wise. Or are you assuming that the tanks wont be fighting alongside the infantry as well? And if so, again, what is the point of taking them in the first place? Only for large battles?

[RVPERTVS]

I don´t think the map size is relevant in this issue we are discusing, I think Uncle´s point is some we all have seen and discussed too: the AI tends to buy lots of foot infantry which is very resilient and tends to overrun almost any position no matter the combinedness of the opfor.

Haven´t tried with the new Ai pcklists, maybe something´s done in this matter.

Regards
Robert

[narwan]

Plenty of room? 50 hexes deep means the actual engagement zone between deployment lines is what, 20 hexes? That's considered SHORT range for weapon engagements! The Dragon for example is classified a SRAT (Short Range Antitank) and has a range of 20. I'm sorry but what you're doing is complaining about the lethality of armor in an battle environment that's considered short range for antitank purposes and very suitable for infantry (tactics).

narwan

[Uncle_Joe]

Whether a European terrain map is 30x50 or 100x150, the acutal engagement ranges are likely to be similar. There is plenty of terrain to block LOS. Sure, there are areas where engagement beyond 1000m is possible, but they are not the rule in Central Europe.

But regardless, your position then is that armor/APCs shouldnt be used in anything except wide-open, long distance engagements? And if so, then they surely are too expensive because that drastically reduces the areas where they can be effective.

I think most people tend to play on FAR too large of a map for smaller point battles. The idea of a company of WarPact troops attacking across multiple kilometers of frontage is highly unrealistic IMO. Frontage for a MR Company on the assault would be closer to 500m, not 1500m. Anything larger would be ridiculously oversized.

But the general gist I am getting is that the only advantage of the mech force is speed to reach the objective. If the objective can be reached via foot, then that is the way to go and vehicles should only be used if foot troops cant properly reach the objective in time. IMO, this is not correct. The points should reflect more than simply the mobility.

[Smersh]

30x50 is what 1.5km by 2.5km?



If a soviet company or battalion was fighting in an area with ATGMs and other heavy weapons, that were un-suppressed they would dismount under cover 1.5km away from the enemy line and move on foot.


I know exactly the trouble your having since most of my games take place during this time. But the advice other people gave is true, 30 by 50 is too small a map size for mounted tactics. you should try playing on 80x100.

In my current game, I had to have infantry armed with RPGs and atgms, move at least 500m infront of tanks and vehicles clearing out ATGMs pockets. any spotted atgms would also be targated for artillery. It worked fairly well. when the enemy ATGMs where taken care of my tanks and APCs could continue moving forward again.

There is always the chance of a suprise ATGM attack, but you have to accept some losses. In the same game, It looked as if everything was clear and the enemy was in retreat, I moved some tanks forward and 2 TOW missles where fired.


I think most people tend to play on FAR too large of a map for smaller point battles. The idea of a company of WarPact troops attacking across multiple kilometers of frontage is highly unrealistic IMO. Frontage for a MR Company on the assault would be closer to 500m, not 1500m. Anything larger would be ridiculously oversized.



I agree to. If he moves to a larger map size he needs to play with a battalion sized force. I normally don't have companies operating more than 500m frontage. and I rarely seperate platoons, unless one is acting as a reserve.

[narwan]

No it is not nor has ever been my position. Feel free to assume though if that helps you.
You seem not to grasp that transport, ANY transport, is a force multiplier for the troops transported. Consequently, in order for that to come into full effect there must be an imperative for the transport. On a 50x30 map there is very little. In that respect alone map size is relevant, on a very small map like yours transports will have much less relative value than on a big map. So you're not just complaining about the lethality of armor under very armor-unfriendly conditions, you're also complaining about the cost of transports (apc's) under conditions where they have relatively little value (and to be very clear: RELATIVELY)!

The whole point of mobility, of mechanised forces, is the ability to move around the enemy AND terrain and engage when and where you want. You seem to mistake that for a high speed move to the flags. Mobility works in all directions. But within the constrictions you prefer there is no room to move around enemy concentrations, little opportunity to outflank or take on the enemy piecemeal. In other words, your force simply lacks the room to move around and do what it does best.

And why are you comparing a WP assault frontage with a ME (movement to contact)? Those are very different things.

Narwan

[Uncle_Joe]

I know exactly the trouble your having since most of my games take place during this time. But the advice other people gave is true, 30 by 50 is too small a map size for mounted tactics. you should try playing on 80x100.



That is where I feel the game breaks down then. If I have to set up battles where the parameters are highly unrealistic (ie, frontage 3-4x normal), then that is a pretty good indicator that there is a problem.


You seem not to grasp that transport, ANY transport, is a force multiplier for the troops transported. Consequently, in order for that to come into full effect there must be an imperative for the transport.



Absolutely. But APCs should also be a combat force multiplier. Currently, they dont feel as such. On the modern battlefield they are vulnerable to a GREAT many things (all the way down to the cheapest RPG/LAW). I dont believe their point cost accurately reflects that vulnerability. If the mobility is the primary advantage, then trucks should suffice. Even MBTs are extremely vulnerable to a large variety of cheap-cost AT weapons (abeit depending on the quality of the MBT). But in any case, I dont believe you are getting your point's worth in terms of combat power.

I would note that the WW2 version does not really share the same point cost issue. The point difference between leg infantry and AFVs is not anywhere near as broad and the capacity for most infantry to affect armor is usually considerably less. I would think that SP-MBT would make the costs between the two even closer since in terms of combat power, armor does not provide the same level of advantage over infantry as it does in WW2 settings (due to the preponderance of portable AT weaponry).


And why are you comparing a WP assault frontage with a ME (movement to contact)? Those are very different things.



Move to Contact isnt going to change Company frontage all that much...certainly not going out to multiple kilometers...

FWIW, I've seen what happens here when someone doubts the 'establishment'. I have no desire to subject myself to that. So, take my opinion as what it is....a point on a graph. I'm not saying I'm 100% infallibly correct. I'm simple stating my observations.

[narwan]

Move to contact frontage for a soviet division is 15 to 25 kilometres. That is the frontage for the divisional recon battallion. The advance guard of the manouvre units would typically be 1 reinforced battallion from one of the regiments. That in turn would have one reinforced company out front and that one would have one reinforced platoon out front. Distance between recon units and manouvre units can be up to a day. The advance platoon of the first echelon battallion would lead the rest of the company by about 20 minutes. The remainder of the battallion would follow about an hour behind. The rest of the regiment would be a couple of hours behind that.
In other words, while the actual frontage of advance will be fairly small (after all, how much can a reinforced platoon cover?) the chosen direction and path of the advance is only one within the whole coverage of 15 to 25 km. There will be a lot of room to move around in and to pick your advance route from. Which is in effect the job of the lead elements, move into advantageous positions (outflanking or simply bypassing) while the rest of the force moves up. Move to contacts do not happen in a vacuum but with a lot of room to manouvre on the flanks and around the enemy.

What I don't get is why you on the one hand feel that the cost of apc's is too high but on the other hand you feel that the very troops they transport (and are a force multiplier for) are too powerful? If something multiplies the value of a unit you consider to be underpriced how can you then say the apc is overpriced? If it multiplies the value of infnatry, at teams and atgms it should cost a fair bit.

Narwan

[Uncle_Joe]

What I don't get is why you on the one hand feel that the cost of apc's is too high but on the other hand you feel that the very troops they transport (and are a force multiplier for) are too powerful? If something multiplies the value of a unit you consider to be underpriced how can you then say the apc is overpriced? If it multiplies the value of infnatry, at teams and atgms it should cost a fair bit.



Err, it would be a matter of the ratio, which is exactly what I think is off.

For example, if they 'multiply' the capability of the force by a factor of 2, but cost by a factor of 3, then I'd say that is a problem. And that appears to be about what I'd say is the current ratio (ie, Mech Infantry can hold its own against twice their number of leg infantry in general, but tend to cost about 3x the price). IMO, you are paying too much for simply mobility. YMMV.

[narwan]

Uncle_Joe said:
(ie, Mech Infantry can hold its own against twice their number of leg infantry in general, but tend to cost about 3x the price). IMO, you are paying too much for simply mobility. YMMV.



First, you're making the same mistake again by making a comparison of just 2 elements (mech and leg infantry). Foot infantry will for example have a very hard time preventing you taking out an artillery park further back. And armor can suddenly find missiles flying from a direction they thought safe.
Also, mech infantry can take on much more than twice their number. Just not all at the same time. Which is the whole point of why you play on too small a map. You can't concentrate on just part of the force.

Narwan

[Uncle_Joe]

Also, mech infantry can take on much more than twice their number. Just not all at the same time. Which is the whole point of why you play on too small a map. You can't concentrate on just part of the force.



Which IMO means that the cost for the added mobility is too high. In battles where mobility is less of a factor, those units lost badly. Obviously there should be some cost for that capability, but my opinion (and nothing more) is that the premium on that mobility is too high.

Look at this way...if you have to play on maps that are too big for realistic force deployment in order for mechanized units to pay off, then they are probably overpriced. My opinion is that the points should reflect being used 'realistically' (ie, over frontage intended for their unit level), not on overly large maps.

There are only so many ways to state the same thing.

[DRG]

Uncle_Joe said:
About Company sized engagements:

30x50 map
~1250-2000 points
all realism settings on
no tank-heavy AI
standard maps (I usually 're-roll' any that have water or are complete city/forest maps)

I dont have any saves at the moment (I guess there are no 'layered' autosaves anywhere, right?).

But its easy to see IMO. Just fire up a battle with those parameters (say, 1990 Sov vs WGerm...take a Sov Motor Rifle combined arms force). <snip>




And what would the battle type be ? Meeter ? Advance ? Assualt ? Delay ? Defend ?

???

I said before, you set it up and post it then we'll ALL know what you are looking at

Don

[narwan]

Uncle_Joe said:

Also, mech infantry can take on much more than twice their number. Just not all at the same time. Which is the whole point of why you play on too small a map. You can't concentrate on just part of the force.



Which IMO means that the cost for the added mobility is too high. In battles where mobility is less of a factor, those units lost badly. Obviously there should be some cost for that capability, but my opinion (and nothing more) is that the premium on that mobility is too high.

Look at this way...if you have to play on maps that are too big for realistic force deployment in order for mechanized units to pay off, then they are probably overpriced. My opinion is that the points should reflect being used 'realistically' (ie, over frontage intended for their unit level), not on overly large maps.

There are only so many ways to state the same thing.



Exactly my point. You should use realistically sized maps for such engagements, not the micro ones.

[Uncle_Joe]

I said before, you set it up and post it then we'll ALL know what you are looking at




Meh, its no biggie. If you havent seen it yourself, nothing I'm gonna send it going to change your mind.

Besides, I dont really want to post a save and then have 10 different people telling that I'm playing 50 different things 'wrong' (too big of a map, too small of a map, too many/not enough points, too high/too low of visibility etc etc etc).

At any rate, I just know to buy the opposing forces now too. It takes some of the surprise out of the game, but it beats the alternative of fighting massed dismounts repeatedly. And regardless of any criticism, I do truly appreciate all of the time and effort its taken to get the game this far. Minor gripes aside, I still feel that it is, by far, the best thing going for tactical combat (and that include products like Combat Mission that are graphically superior, but weaker in results IMO).

[Marek_Tucan]

Uncle_Joe said:
In battles where mobility is less of a factor, those units lost badly.



Which is a reason, for example, why it was fully OK to have "baseline" M13's during the Thunder run (where there was emphasis on mobility) while later on, whent the main problem started to be MOUT where mobility is less of a factor, M113's and Strykers got loaded with additional weight of slat armour. Or why Israel and Russia are building heavy APC's - in their perceived use strategic mobility isn't as much of a factor like ability to survive under conditions where the mobility isn't all that important.

[Smersh]

I'm not trying to sound pushy but there has consistently been only one peice of advice, play on a larger map. In WP tactics a company would never normally operate alone in the first place. WP companies are more like western platoons.

[DRG]

Uncle_Joe said:

Meh, its no biggie. If you havent seen it yourself, nothing I'm gonna send it going to change your mind.




That's complete BS and you know it. We know vaguely what force it is you are using but no real details. Oh sure there's been a lot of posts back and forth and you have "suggested" "take a Sov Motor Rifle combined arms force" which means WHAT exactly ?? The BTR Co + Tk Pl ???. We don't know if you are buying any mortars or whatever. ALL we know if you are acting as the commander of an mech force dealing with an infantry heavy opponent and losing . ( and obviously unhappy that is happening )We have had examples in the past dealing with complaints about one aspect of the game or another and there is always someone who simply refuses to SHOW us with a save game what they are trying to deal with so we can see what you are seeing. WHY they don't is just a bit suspicious.



Uncle_Joe said:
Besides, I dont really want to post a save and then have 10 different people telling that I'm playing 50 different things 'wrong' (too big of a map, too small of a map, too many/not enough points, too high/too low of visibility etc etc etc).


Well what the hell do you think has been happening these last dozen posts? You've been arguing knowing what you've been doing with the game and everyone else can only guess. You set yourself up for this and then tell me " I don't really want to post a save" That's your choice but don't complain about things then refuse to provide us with information that would help us understand the problems you are having.



Uncle_Joe said:
At any rate, I just know to buy the opposing forces now too. It takes some of the surprise out of the game, but it beats the alternative of fighting massed dismounts repeatedly. And regardless of any criticism, I do truly appreciate all of the time and effort its taken to get the game this far. Minor gripes aside, I still feel that it is, by far, the best thing going for tactical combat (and that include products like Combat Mission that are graphically superior, but weaker in results IMO).




Buying the AI force is a perfectly valid way of playing the game and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with playing on a 30x50 map. Small maps are my prefence.

The AI is set up to deal with low point games by purchasing the best force to deal with low point games and that means it does NOT go out and buy the high end equipment otherwise, it loses ( sound familiar? ). Charging in with a Mech force guns blazing does not work against infantry heavy forces in the real world either.

Don

[wulfir]

Smersh said:
...play on a larger map.



I think it would be a good solution, yes, if the idea is to get the "value out of the mech elements".

Buying the AI forces is not such a bad idea, though as stated is will take some of the surprise out of it.

A third option, I guess, would be to have a friend buy and deploy the AI controlled forces.

[Nightblade]

Buying the enemy AI force may certainly takes the surprise out, but since i do that i enjoy the game a lot more when playing on small maps (just let the AI deploy them by itself to get some surprise back).

As on small maps, the AI massive amount of very cheap rifle/AT platoons it can buy sometime is annoying to play with. Buying yourself their forces solve entirely this annoyance.

[DRG]

Buying the AI side yourself and allowing the AI to do the deployment is something I have been recommending to people for years and having a friend set up the AI side is almost as old as SP itself

Consider this dilemma

If we set up the picklists to allow the AI to buy, for example, a slightly more mechanized force, maybe toss in a Mech platoon on the first AI purchase go around and set it up so that it will be picked up in the first 1500 points this makes people happy who want to play on a small map and all the people who think they are facing "hordes" of infantry because using the 1990 example and looking at the German force for that year a Pz Gren platoon is going to cost somewhere around the same price as a Jaeger Company. ( "That's too much !!" I can hear the cries now........http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif ) and that cuts down on the number of units a human player has to face.

However, take that same number of points and increase the frontage and work on a 50 x 50 map instead of a 30 x 50 map and now the AI's trying to cover double the ground with less leg infantry and then somebody plays the game and complains about the "lame" AI and how easy it was to win.

No matter what we do, someone ends up unhappy. All we can do is provide the options to work around whatever shortcoming each individual gamers thinks exists in the game and choosing the force you want to fight is one of the oldest and easiest to do and if you set up three or four of them in advance then pick one at random you'll likely forget exactly what you picked for the AI anyway unless you always pick the same thing

Don

[Marek_Tucan]

On such a small map I'd use APC's merely if I cannot afford "real" tanks and enemy is supposed to have weak AT defenses, and I don't use them as transports per say but as mobile MG pillboxes or to have a rapidly deployable reserve. Or, if possible, i buy some cheapo old reserve tanks instead (for Czechoslovakia my favourites are T-34/85!s, well into 1980's still in reserve depots http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif)

[Uncle_Joe]

No matter what we do, someone ends up unhappy. All we can do is provide the options to work around whatever shortcoming each individual gamers thinks exists in the game and choosing the force you want to fight is one of the oldest and easiest to do and if you set up three or four of them in advance then pick one at random you'll likely forget exactly what you picked for the AI anyway unless you always pick the same thing



Granted. But this has nothing to do with map size or a specific force I pick or small points vs large points (which is precisely why posting a save isnt going to do anything other than limit the scope of what I'm trying to say!). Perhaps I'm not being clear in what I'm trying say. So, let me give a quick example using SPMBT and SPWW2

In SPWW2, using Sov units in 1944 (using approximate costs since they will vary based on exact weapon choices).

'Standard' tank platoon (T34/85): 243
'Heavy' tank platoon (IS2): 339
Rifle Company (foot): ~230-300
Mech Company (halftrack): ~390-400

The price variance here is fairly small. Being mechanized for the infantry costs about 33%-80% more depending on equipment mix. And a tank platoon costs about the same a coy of foot infantry. Note that the number of long-ranged weapons which can reach out and smoke those halftracks isnt going to be nearly as high as on the modern battlefield (ie, its very unlikely to lose one moving at 15 hexes, unlike the way the ATGMs have a 99% hit/kill if you happen to move in LOS for a single instant).

Here are some examples from 1990 Sov force:

'Standard' tank platoon (T72): 770
'Heavy' tank platoon (T80s): 800-900
Rifle Company (foot): 300-400 (depending on ATGMs vs RPG teams)
Mech Company (BTR): 800-900 (depending on AT weaponry)

The disparity between the vehicle forces and the leg infantry is much higher. Yes, those vehicles are more capable, but in general, so is the infantry. On the modern battlefield, infantry is generally far more lethal to armor at range (especially light armor like APCs/Halftracks etc).

Thats what I see as the 'problem'. To me, the infantry to armor cost disparity should be LOWER in Modern than in WW2 (on average). Yet here its higher despite the ease with which most modern infantry can dispatch vehicles.

On another note, are modern vehicles THAT much more lethal to infantry than their WW2 counter-parts? Yes, their firepower is superior in some ways, but they still have to find the infantry and they still have avoid AT weaponry. And this limits their ability to control the battlefield much the same as in WW2. They are more lethal, but 2x more lethal overall?

Note that I didnt go through and cherry-pick specific units to prove a point. I just randomly opened each game and looked at the cost for what I consider 'typical' units for those periods.

If you think that modern armor/transport is worth more on the modern battlefield than WW2 armor was in its day, then so be it. Its obviously your call. What always brings me back to this issue is that buying all leg-infantry in SPWW2 does not seem to convey the same advantage as it does in SPMBT.

[DRG]

In WinSPWW2 in 1946 a US M3 Halftrack costs 23 points in MBT in 1946 it's 22 points.

A standard US rifle squad in WinSPMBT in 1946 costs 20 points. In WinSPww2 in 1946 it's 26 points( with pretty much the same weapons etc )

In WinSPWW2 a M26 Pershing costs 156 points. An M26 Pershing in MBT in 1946 costs 78 points and that is to ensure that as tanks pregress for the next 70+ years that MBT represents will be not end up costing out of the ballpark

So, in 1946 in WW2 you can buy one Pershing OR HAVE 6 infantry squads. In MBT in 1946 you can have one Pershing or just about 4 infantry squads so for this example, and I picked this simply becasue it's one we can directly compare the two games with, the "infantry to armor cost disparity" IS lower in MBT than in WW2 which is the opposite of your claim for the two games

Don

[Uncle_Joe]

the "infantry to armor cost disparity" IS lower in MBT than in WW2 which is the opposite of your claim for the two games



For that one example, perhaps. But in GENERAL, this is not the case.

But again, at this point, I'm not going to try and argue it. If you want to believe that infantry are more expensive relative to armor in MBT than thats fine. Perhaps I'm just playing 'incorrectly'.

[Mobhack]

Thats what I see as the 'problem'. To me, the infantry to armor cost disparity should be LOWER in Modern than in WW2 (on average). Yet here its higher despite the ease with which most modern infantry can dispatch vehicles.




modern armour has enormous RF, FC, stabiliser, armour (including reactive, HEAT etc), speed and weapons that make the WW2 ones look like peashooters. And they have night fighting gear, often thermal imagers.

Modern APC are similar, with more steel armour than WW2 medium tanks often enough (And ERA and so on).

Infantry has real problems with an armoured opposition (even a ferret scout car) once it has used all 6 or so HEAT rounds up, assuming it had any MAWS in the first place,or if the armoured force refuses to close to effective RPG range. (See scouts, below).



On another note, are modern vehicles THAT much more lethal to infantry than their WW2 counter-parts? Yes, their firepower is superior in some ways, but they still have to find the infantry and they still have avoid AT weaponry. And this limits their ability to control the battlefield much the same as in WW2. They are more lethal, but 2x more lethal overall?




Finding the infantry is best done by not blundering into them. Use your mobility and the battlefield space to deploy scouts observing the likely approach routes of the OPFOR leg grunts. Once spotted, they will be toast for your arty. (But I note you never seem to mention arty in your posts at all??).

They will also be toast for e.g. a ferret scout car firing from 400 metres or so, keeping out of RPG range. Or tank co-ax.

Or, just blast away with arty on the likely approach routes anyway. If you are fighting on postage-stamp battlefields, this will reduce the guesswork involved.

However - post WW2 armour is more involved in the anti-armour aspect of warfare. This includes MICV - those TOW on a Bradley do not come cheap.

If you want to have cheaper armour for anti-grunt work, then investigate the close support (CS) tank formations many OOBs have. These emphasise HE over AP loadout - and HE tends to be cheaper. They may also be older model AFV with less "goodies" to pay for.

If you also want another advantage over leg grunts, then cover your approach with smoke, and use the thermal imaging sights on your APCS and MBT to spot the grunts through the smoke. It is rather good for that!. It is also a reason your vehicles cost more than WW2 armour which are somewhat lacking in the night fighting gear dept. (If fighting an "infantry horde" before TI, then do it in a dark night, say 3 hexes, if you have access even to IR searchlights, just advance your IR vehicles behind a beating line of infantry).




Note that I didnt go through and cherry-pick specific units to prove a point. I just randomly opened each game and looked at the cost for what I consider 'typical' units for those periods.




Like with like is a better test. Otherwise you are comparing a 1930 model T ford with a 2006 Ford Focus GTI.



If you think that modern armor/transport is worth more on the modern battlefield than WW2 armor was in its day, then so be it. Its obviously your call. What always brings me back to this issue is that buying all leg-infantry in SPWW2 does not seem to convey the same advantage as it does in SPMBT.




You get what you pay for in terms of goodies bolted on. Armour costs points, carry capacity costs points, FC costs points, stabilisers cost, RF costs points, Crew costs points, Armour (front/side (costs more as 2 off and larger area)/turret armour, Spaced cost on top of steel, ERA on top of all, etc all costs). Fancy night fighting gear costs, and so does swim capability. Fancy potent modern weapons cost more than WW2 ones.

In WW2 - steel armour is costed relatively more than post war in the CC.

From WW2 a Soviet T34/76 Model 43 (late model #168) costs 75 points
From MBT a Russian T34/76 Model 1943 #3 costs 52 points

From WW2 a USA M3 Halftrack (unit #32) costs 23 points.
From MBT a USA M3 Halftrack (unit #58) Costs 22 points.

So - modern (MBT) armour actually costs you slightly less, when you compare like for like, rather than model Ts with Focuses.

All points systems are a compromise, and need to be adressed to the entire game system for overall game balance, and ours does this. Ditto AI pick lists.


Cheers
Andy

[RVPERTVS]

RVPERTVS said: the AI tends to buy lots of foot infantry which is very resilient and tends to overrun almost any position no matter the combinedness of the opfor.



Well, no more of this issue, I´ve been playing around with v3 last weekend and after some experimentation I can tell you that the fix has finally arrived with this last update.

I don´t know if it was the AI picklist updates or the raised infantry cost, or a combination of both, but the AI no more buys insane amounts of foot infantry; I´ve even seen the AI buying more mechanized than foot infantry wich never happened before v3. So now battles against the AI look more like real armored confrontations than guerrilla skrimishes like they used to be.

This was my main complaint against the AI and now is fixed, I thought I couldn´t love this game more...I was wrong http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Regards
Robert

[Marek_Tucan]

Played a first battle in v.03 (I mean first finished battle, not the feature-testing bits http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif), meeting Czech Rep. vs. Slovakia (to ensure identical opponents), 1993, with AI buy. Map was 120x120 and only 4000 points for each side to make things interesting and allow for some maneuvering. I bought several tanks (5 T-72M1, two T-55AM2B), a motor rifle co in OT-64's and a platoon of MVP-2 IFV's, plus scouts, artillery and ammo supply. The AI bought a company of T-72 and a mass of leg infantry with some ATGM teams. Those proved somewhat combat worthy, everything armoured I lost was to them - two OT-64's, DANA SPH and a BVP. Engaged only three of his tanks, with flank ambush by one T-72M1 killed them all, rest of his tanks was in reserve and actually didn't move prior the end of the battle.
The infantry was no match - I had too little dismounts so I used them in dense forests to guard flanks/gaps, and I used the OT-64's as mobile MG nests to shoot up his infantry in the open. Stayed out of RPG range and literally massacred the infantry with MG and mortar fire. Final result 20 casaulties on my side, 188 on AI side, mostly the infantry. My tanks didn't do much as I have kept them in ambush positions against his armored reserves.
So in this battle, even a very light armour proved to be effective against a mass of foot infantry, as long as it keeps its distance, and each of the OT-64's was definitely worth atleast twice its cost http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif