Re: why buy armor?
 

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

Re: why buy armor?
 

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).

Re: why buy armor?
 

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.

Re: why buy armor?
 

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.

Re: why buy armor?
 

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.


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.



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

Re: why buy armor?
 

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.

Re: why buy armor?
 

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.

Re: why buy armor?
 

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

Re: why buy armor?
 

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)

Re: why buy armor?
 

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.

Re: why buy armor?
 

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

Re: why buy armor?
 

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'.

Re: why buy armor?
 

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).

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).


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

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

Re: why buy armor?
 

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/image...es/biggrin.gif

Regards
Robert

Re: why buy armor?
 

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