AIFV costs, should them be lowered or not?
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 canīt stand against each other, not to mention MBTs from the ī50s.
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.
|
Threaded Mode