why buy armor?

[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

[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

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.