why buy armor?

[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.

[narwan]

Uncle_Joe said:
(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.

First, you're making the same mistake again by making a comparison of just 2 elements (mech and leg infantry). Foot infantry will for example have a very hard time preventing you taking out an artillery park further back. And armor can suddenly find missiles flying from a direction they thought safe.
Also, mech infantry can take on much more than twice their number. Just not all at the same time. Which is the whole point of why you play on too small a map. You can't concentrate on just part of the force.

Narwan

[Uncle_Joe]

Also, mech infantry can take on much more than twice their number. Just not all at the same time. Which is the whole point of why you play on too small a map. You can't concentrate on just part of the force.

Which IMO means that the cost for the added mobility is too high. In battles where mobility is less of a factor, those units lost badly. Obviously there should be some cost for that capability, but my opinion (and nothing more) is that the premium on that mobility is too high.

Look at this way...if you have to play on maps that are too big for realistic force deployment in order for mechanized units to pay off, then they are probably overpriced. My opinion is that the points should reflect being used 'realistically' (ie, over frontage intended for their unit level), not on overly large maps.

There are only so many ways to state the same thing.

[narwan]

Uncle_Joe said:

Which IMO means that the cost for the added mobility is too high. In battles where mobility is less of a factor, those units lost badly. Obviously there should be some cost for that capability, but my opinion (and nothing more) is that the premium on that mobility is too high.

Look at this way...if you have to play on maps that are too big for realistic force deployment in order for mechanized units to pay off, then they are probably overpriced. My opinion is that the points should reflect being used 'realistically' (ie, over frontage intended for their unit level), not on overly large maps.

There are only so many ways to state the same thing.

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

[Uncle_Joe]

I said before, you set it up and post it then we'll ALL know what you are looking at

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).

[DRG]

Uncle_Joe said:

Meh, its no biggie. If you havent seen it yourself, nothing I'm gonna send it going to change your mind.

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.

Uncle_Joe said:
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).

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.

Uncle_Joe said:
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).

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

[Marek_Tucan]

Uncle_Joe said:
In battles where mobility is less of a factor, those units lost badly.

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.

[Smersh]

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.

[wulfir]

Smersh said:
...play on a larger map.

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.