[RERomine]

Originally Posted by Charles22

RERomine:

You're still not getting it. Now I didn't realize part of your SPAA was guarding one mere tank platoon, but I'm telling you should be protecting ALL your armor, not just that one platoon -and- taking that mostly pointless (as used) infantry SPAA and give it to the armor. Total armored protection; no infantry protection. If I wany a novelty AA for the infantry, maybe some towed AA.

I confused the issue here with a mistake, by saying platoon instead of company. All of my armor is protected by four SPAAs as well as they can protect them. SPAAs protecting infantry will still shoot at anything that comes into range, so just because the other four SPAAs escort tracked infantry doesn't mean they still don't protect the tanks. The reverse is true also.

I don't see how you can say an infantry is safer in an open-tooped vehicle than on foot (concerning air strikes. Even IRL that isn't so. You have 12 guys crammed together, with often the easiest part to hit from the air, the top, being fully exposed. Before you say it, "no, they hit the sides", I will ask you why so many AFV's get lost to air strikes, and I will give you a clue, it's not because the air strike hit the side armor. Now there are 'some' topped HT's in the game, but I dont' think Gerry has any, unless it's for a reduced squad only (6 men or less). I think you have this "riders don't suffer enough on tanks" influencing you here. Besides, appealing to your rider common sense again, apply it here, though it would doubtlessly be more painful. Just why are they more safe? It makes no sense.

Just for sake of clarity and agreement, yes dismounted infantry is safer than being in tracks, open topped or not. If the battle threat was that one dimensional, life would be much easier. There are concerns about artillery and small arms fire to consider as well and they occur more often than air strikes. Now, you may have your game set so air strikes happen every battle. If that is the case, we are talking two very different situations.

It seems the unrealism you see in riders is also commonplace with passengers of HT's as well. In my case, I accept that "if" riders, my main form of mobility, are inadequately treated in losses, nevermind that they almost never get fired upon that way in my case, then I have not a lot of choice if I wish to mobilize my infantry some (besides, it's not like the AI doesn't do it also)...

The unrealism aspect is in the game model and not reality. I know troops rode on tanks and have done it myself. If the only choice you have in your game is to ride, then by all means do it. I've done it in my game, but it's been more the exception than the rule. Typically, if I have no tracks close by and a leg unit has been blasted to bits and is almost done, I will use whatever I have to ride it quickly to a safe spot to save it. Tanks have served this purpose before when not involved in a fire fight. From the game perspective, it seems like you have just as much of a chance of surviving small arms fire on a tank as you would in a half-track. That just defies logic. If someone was shooting at you, would you want to be IN the armored box, even if the top is open, or ON it?

With respect to open topped vehicles, half-track or otherwise, you don't need AP to kill them if you get a top hit. FBs with HE can do it. An infantry squad on a hill firing down into it can do it. I've destroyed half-tracks with rifles this way. AP is only needed if you need significant armor penetration. Larger HE rounds can penetrate armor as well. A FB with HE rounds, it really would depend on the size of the round. You might still get penetration out of a 30mm HE round. I don't know for sure without checking.

Ah, so ammo trucks, which are so easily destroyed, if hit, are as useless in core as I thought...

In the manner you use them, they may be. The way I use them, they are useful. A general rule if thumb I use is, if they (any unit type) die all the time, they ARE useless. I ask you this, what is the penalty of having a non-combatant in your core? Does it take experience from a unit that would otherwise deserve it? If it does, you would have to prove it and I don't think there is any way to do so unless Andy or Don can confirm it one way or another. Your core is small enough that it's not taking up space that another unit would use. If you want the other combatant, just add it. Would your core be less deadly because of an ammo truck in it? No. If it was 100 tanks or 100 tanks and an ammo truck, you still have 100 tanks, no matter how you slice it. The ammo truck doesn't dull the effectiveness of your blade. It's just personal preference.

I see what you mean, but the reverse is true to soem extent as well. In the overall battle, if the Tiger destroys everything withthe 1st shot, then there's less call for ammo...

True, but with more experience, the AI will get more forces. You will have more targets to engage and consequently use more ammo. I don't know if it balances out or not. Your experience is such that you fire twice as fast and are twice as accurate, but face twice as many targets. If that's how it works, it balances out. Now, if you fire twice as fast and are only 50% more accurate, but still have twice as many targets, it won't balance. Unless you want to spend a lot of time testing it, you just have to get a feel for how it works. The Tiger isn't a good example in this case anyhow because they have a lot of ammo.