AIFV costs, should them be lowered or not?

[pdoktar]

Nowadays as a ATGM-Cannon-TI-Stabiliser-ERA-etc.-IFV costs 300-450 points each. TI is expensive, ATGM adds 100 points (depending on loadout and TA and warhead), good hit% for Cannon is nice to have etc. BUT armor protection is usually so weak that it can´t stand against each other, not to mention MBTs from the ´50s.

You can load a squad of marines in it, but that is the ONLY real advantage compared to same cost (or half the cost) MBT. Yet when the firing starts, these million dollar (=300+ points) tinpots crack open like politicians (or modern day CEOs) promises. So gamewise they are somewhat useless, as they are no real alternative for cheap (30 point!) APC. I understand that in real life, AIFV is very expensive and considered not to be lost in action. But the cost of a SINGLE company of AIFV-equipped infantry may be 5000 points! And if it runs into a 5000 point non-AIFV enemy (usually more than a battalion strong) you can only watch the tin-pot destruction.

Point being that should 300+ point super-AIFV gadgets be reconsidered in their cost? At least when AI in some oobs tend to buy these expensive, non-survivable units, and lose the battle head-on immediately.

Only thing about AIFV is its first-shot value of sensory advantage and usually effective missile. But unlike an MBT, which can soak hits and really make battle compared to its cost, a AIFV will get toasted by very simple RPGs, Guns, even rifle-grenades.

[narwan]

No, I don't think so.
They seem too expensive because you pick an example in which they are clearly the inferior weapon system. In this game, all depends on what system has the edge over what other.
Put those same ATGM-cannon-TI-stabiliser-ERA IFV against a mixed of force of slightly older tanks (like M60's, Leo 1's, etc.) lacking TI and basic APC's and your IFV's (with their ability to fire through smoke and powerful weapons and infantry to do the spotting/securing for them) can slaughter the opposition.
You can't base the validity of the cost of a unit (type) by comparing them to one or two other types. It is determined in relation to all other units in the game. A tiger tank and a T34/85 (without HEAT) are close together in price even though the first is much better in direct confrontation. But against a platoon of infantry the Tiger isn't much better if at all so the price from that POV should be about the same as for a T34/85.

If you happen to find yourself in a situation where the enemy has a cheaper unit that can kill your more expensive ones or your same cost unit can't kill his while his can kill yours you're just out of luck. It happens.

But I will agree that modern IFV's are likely to suffer in this game and you're often better off getting another force mix. But sometimes they are the right choice.

[pdoktar]

I brought this up because a 300 point IFV is generally not (in my opinion) worth what a 300 point TI tank (Leopard 1A5 for example). Not to mention a 450 point IFV (in the posted polish oob there are some) being as worthy as a Leo 2A4.

Of course the tactical situation varies, but heavily armored MBTs may, or sometimes surely will survive a attack and have the chance of returning fire. But a IFV have no chance of surviving whatsoever (now I´m exaggurating, but trying to make a point). So NO IFV should be as expensive as a Main Battle Tank of the same period and sights. Or then the cost of heavier armor (so vital!) is too low in the cost calculator. MBTs too can carry tank-riders (if not fitted with ERA) if needed for close protection. I know riders aren´t armor-protected, but yet they won´t get wiped out if the tank is destroyed (gunned down but not wiped out).

IMO AIFV has no such assets compared to a MBT IN THIS GAME, that it should cost as much. Plainly and generally speaking.

[narwan]

Well, if the IFV is capable of killing the Leo 1 too (with ATGM's and/or HEAT rounds) and can carry infantry internally and is (several sizes) smaller (=harder to spot and hit) shouldn't it actually be more expensive (assuming sights etc are of more or less equal quality)?

Sure, MBT's will sometimes survive an attack that an IFV won't. But most MBT's are nearly as vulnerable to modern AT weapons as IFV's are. If you hit a Leo 1 with an ATGM, lets say one with penetration 100, you have an overkill penetration of about 70. If you hit the IFV with it you'd have an overkill penetration of about 90. Not that much of a difference. Even if the Leo had double the armor it wouldn't make that much difference. Now if you're firing with weapons with far less or no overkill the tanks armor is indeed worth more, relatively speaking. But that's not as much a factor of the target (the LEO) as it is dependent on the firer.
Certain very modern MBT's are very well protected indeed. But those are vulnerable to TA weapons and airlaunched weapons. Does that mean TA weapons and attack helicopter should have their cost increased cause they can take out an expensive MBT (while the MBT can't hurt it back)? No, it doesn't. It means you have to put the right system against the right other one. One consequence is that AIFV's when put against same generation MBT's are more often toast than not. The solution is to carry a couple of TA capable AT teams in them. Or have an attack helicopter in support, etc.

You say that no AIFV should cost as much as an MBT. So a Bradley should be cheaper than a T34/85 or vanilla T55? It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

[pdoktar]

Sorry, trying to clarify. I think no AIFV should cost as much as a same generation MBT, given that both have TI sights. Example the posted polish oob AIFV of 450points vs the same polish oobs Leo 2A4 of 450points. (Sorry I haven´t got the game itself now on hand to check the name of this mystical AIFV)

And for the ammo loadout differences.. AIFV missile loads are 4-10 missiles. 120mm armed tank carries 40 rounds, western loadout being atleast 15 sabot rounds plus 15 HEAT and rest HE. Even if the modern AIFV has TA-missiles and scores destroying hits with all of them, it wipes out 4-10 MBTs (TA sometimes hits not the top, so this is uncertain). So modern western MBTs have 30 rounds to try to do the same and 10 sabots can be counted to be as effective penetration-wise as 10 TA-missiles. So MBTs have more armor and fire-power and can carry riders as their eyes and protection. As you said, AIFVs put against same-generation MBTs will be toasted more often than not. So WHY Polish AIFV cost 450, Polish Leo2A4 cost 450? Smaller, maybe, troops under armor, maybe, but still..

This is the point game-wise: Would you buy an polish 450point 10 TA-missiles carrying AIFV or decide to buy something cheaper, less sophisticated, and save the 400+ point single expenditures for the more survivable 450point more fire-power Leo2A4.

Certainly I would and will leave the MBT-priced AIFVs to the weapons encyclopedia. I would like to buy AIFVs, but can´t stand seeing them get killed by almost any heavy weapon like AT-4 ATGM head-on, as the same-price Leo2A4 has so much less to worry about and can concentrate avoiding head-on TA-missiles, attack helos an modern sabot rounds.

[pdoktar]

The possibility of 450point Polish-AIFV getting killed during combat is much more than a 450point Leo2A4, because it can be destroyed by so many weapon systems more than a Leo2A4 deployed that the front, or even the side armor facing the threat. Yet the potential capacity of this Polish-AIFV to kill expensive armored vehicles is lower, because there are only 10 missiles to use, versus 30-40 rounds of various AP ammo of Leo2A4. So Polish AIFV, comparing to the Leo2A4 is not cost-effective to operate in WinSPMBT battles.

[Listy]

Err, maybe you're useing them wrong?

My warriors have been the mainstay of my forces slapping all and sundry around. Don't look at the single points cost, look at the overall forces cost.

Run a Recce section up front then use the IFV once you find the enemy. You'll soon find it worth it's points.

[hoplitis]

High costs are not necessarily a problem if both sides are "hightech". Then enerybody gets to blow up expensive hardware! It can become a problem when the OPFOR is "lowtech". If you lose a single IFV you must wipe out a couple of infantry Coys to compensate. But there is a fair amount of justice in this. You 're supposed to use the tech gap in your favor to fulfill your victory conditions and take low casualties (ala USA vs Iraq). Listy has a point. Experiment with tactics [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon07.gif[/img] !

[pdoktar]

This thread now brings to my mind the gun acc. rating thread, where the problem was very basic and simple: gun acc of US/GER guns shouln´t be lower than Russian manufactured guns. IT was the about thing with a simple number.

Soon everybody was finding ways to tell that FC and RF and other tech affect so much to the real accuracy of main guns, that the acc. rating doesn´t affect it.. yet it was changed.

The same way here. Tactics are being messed here, as I simply pointed that an AIFV should not have the basic cost of a Modern MBT. I know that tactics is what make the game, but I want to point out a simple single number, that affect the plain desirability of a single vehicle versus others.

Of course AIFV has it´s uses as Narwan said in his first post, but also basicly declared that AIFV-units tend to suffer in THIS game against other units. So why not to use game provided tools in the game environment and recalculate the price for AIFVs compared to other units. Isn´t the cost of units there to balance things out game-wise? So they wouldn´t TEND to suffer, that they would be cost-efficient, and check out Mobhacks post about using airmobile and panzergrenadiers, and his advice of only byuing a few AIFVs since they are expensive and have only limited uses, and to concentrate to less than a 100point APC/IFV.

[hoplitis]

I have no problem with cost recalculation of IFV vs MBT But I must not be done on a comparison of IFV vs "lowtech" APC . The low tech APC is a lightly armored + light inf support or light AA MG lorry to move inf around,while the IFV is a "weapons platform" (ATGMs,more/heavier inf support weapons, better optics etc.). So, different missions.