why buy armor?

[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

[Marek_Tucan]

Played a first battle in v.03 (I mean first finished battle, not the feature-testing bits ), 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

[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.

[narwan]

No it is not nor has ever been my position. Feel free to assume though if that helps you.
You seem not to grasp that transport, ANY transport, is a force multiplier for the troops transported. Consequently, in order for that to come into full effect there must be an imperative for the transport. On a 50x30 map there is very little. In that respect alone map size is relevant, on a very small map like yours transports will have much less relative value than on a big map. So you're not just complaining about the lethality of armor under very armor-unfriendly conditions, you're also complaining about the cost of transports (apc's) under conditions where they have relatively little value (and to be very clear: RELATIVELY)!

The whole point of mobility, of mechanised forces, is the ability to move around the enemy AND terrain and engage when and where you want. You seem to mistake that for a high speed move to the flags. Mobility works in all directions. But within the constrictions you prefer there is no room to move around enemy concentrations, little opportunity to outflank or take on the enemy piecemeal. In other words, your force simply lacks the room to move around and do what it does best.

And why are you comparing a WP assault frontage with a ME (movement to contact)? Those are very different things.

Narwan

[Uncle_Joe]

I know exactly the trouble your having since most of my games take place during this time. But the advice other people gave is true, 30 by 50 is too small a map size for mounted tactics. you should try playing on 80x100.

That is where I feel the game breaks down then. If I have to set up battles where the parameters are highly unrealistic (ie, frontage 3-4x normal), then that is a pretty good indicator that there is a problem.

You seem not to grasp that transport, ANY transport, is a force multiplier for the troops transported. Consequently, in order for that to come into full effect there must be an imperative for the transport.

Absolutely. But APCs should also be a combat force multiplier. Currently, they dont feel as such. On the modern battlefield they are vulnerable to a GREAT many things (all the way down to the cheapest RPG/LAW). I dont believe their point cost accurately reflects that vulnerability. If the mobility is the primary advantage, then trucks should suffice. Even MBTs are extremely vulnerable to a large variety of cheap-cost AT weapons (abeit depending on the quality of the MBT). But in any case, I dont believe you are getting your point's worth in terms of combat power.

I would note that the WW2 version does not really share the same point cost issue. The point difference between leg infantry and AFVs is not anywhere near as broad and the capacity for most infantry to affect armor is usually considerably less. I would think that SP-MBT would make the costs between the two even closer since in terms of combat power, armor does not provide the same level of advantage over infantry as it does in WW2 settings (due to the preponderance of portable AT weaponry).

And why are you comparing a WP assault frontage with a ME (movement to contact)? Those are very different things.

Move to Contact isnt going to change Company frontage all that much...certainly not going out to multiple kilometers...

FWIW, I've seen what happens here when someone doubts the 'establishment'. I have no desire to subject myself to that. So, take my opinion as what it is....a point on a graph. I'm not saying I'm 100% infallibly correct. I'm simple stating my observations.

[narwan]

Move to contact frontage for a soviet division is 15 to 25 kilometres. That is the frontage for the divisional recon battallion. The advance guard of the manouvre units would typically be 1 reinforced battallion from one of the regiments. That in turn would have one reinforced company out front and that one would have one reinforced platoon out front. Distance between recon units and manouvre units can be up to a day. The advance platoon of the first echelon battallion would lead the rest of the company by about 20 minutes. The remainder of the battallion would follow about an hour behind. The rest of the regiment would be a couple of hours behind that.
In other words, while the actual frontage of advance will be fairly small (after all, how much can a reinforced platoon cover?) the chosen direction and path of the advance is only one within the whole coverage of 15 to 25 km. There will be a lot of room to move around in and to pick your advance route from. Which is in effect the job of the lead elements, move into advantageous positions (outflanking or simply bypassing) while the rest of the force moves up. Move to contacts do not happen in a vacuum but with a lot of room to manouvre on the flanks and around the enemy.

What I don't get is why you on the one hand feel that the cost of apc's is too high but on the other hand you feel that the very troops they transport (and are a force multiplier for) are too powerful? If something multiplies the value of a unit you consider to be underpriced how can you then say the apc is overpriced? If it multiplies the value of infnatry, at teams and atgms it should cost a fair bit.

Narwan

[Uncle_Joe]

What I don't get is why you on the one hand feel that the cost of apc's is too high but on the other hand you feel that the very troops they transport (and are a force multiplier for) are too powerful? If something multiplies the value of a unit you consider to be underpriced how can you then say the apc is overpriced? If it multiplies the value of infnatry, at teams and atgms it should cost a fair bit.

Err, it would be a matter of the ratio, which is exactly what I think is off.

For example, if they 'multiply' the capability of the force by a factor of 2, but cost by a factor of 3, then I'd say that is a problem. And that appears to be about what I'd say is the current ratio (ie, Mech Infantry can hold its own against twice their number of leg infantry in general, but tend to cost about 3x the price). IMO, you are paying too much for simply mobility. YMMV.