Some random thoughts

[Wdll]

ATGMs, especialy the TA variety, are a ***** to deal with. That is just one of the problems that MBTs face (winSPMBT, I am not talking about real life). Even the MBTs that have some kind of defense system, they more and more feel like a waste of points. Even if you abandon the MBTs and get some lighter solutions that also serve as APCs, their cost is high enough to barely make it much better, plus the risk of losing the vehicle and the troops inside. Going infantry only isn't much better, with even light mortars being able to obliterate them, you just need to have vehicles.
So, is the answer a combination of very cheap APCs and cheap tanks with occasional specialised forces like scout/snipe with good Vision, and ATGMs?

Of course you then get in the 200 units limit if talking about PBEM campaigns, but still...

[Imp]

The solution is combined arms the vehicles protect the infantry, the infantry spot the ATGMs. The MMG & arty deal with the ATGMs. Vehicles of course generally only move at full speed in areas that have been checked & its safe to do so. You just adapt to the threat but of course things still go bang.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Imp

The solution is combined arms the vehicles protect the infantry, the infantry spot the ATGMs. The MMG & arty deal with the ATGMs. Vehicles of course generally only move at full speed in areas that have been checked & its safe to do so. You just adapt to the threat but of course things still go bang.

Modern warfare really requires scouting more than ever before. (To include helos etc). But caution rules the day if the OPFOR is about your level of technology, or better.

Or simply adopt the Soviet model and advance behind a barrage of off-map arty. Worked in the GPW, still works today if you keep the media away. (500 VP for a CNN camera crew? )


Andy

[Ramm]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

Modern warfare really requires scouting more than ever before. (To include helos etc). But caution rules the day if the OPFOR is about your level of technology, or better.

Or simply adopt the Soviet model and advance behind a barrage of off-map arty. Worked in the GPW, still works today if you keep the media away. (500 VP for a CNN camera crew? )


Andy

@ camera crew

but wuts GPW

[Lt. Ketch]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

Modern warfare really requires scouting more than ever before. (To include helos etc). But caution rules the day if the OPFOR is about your level of technology, or better.

Or simply adopt the Soviet model and advance behind a barrage of off-map arty. Worked in the GPW, still works today if you keep the media away. (500 VP for a CNN camera crew? )


Andy

I'm a big fan of the Soviet model. There's a reason my signiture is what it is .

Wdll, in regards to the problem at hand, I can relate. I can't stand those little units that are impossible to see and yet can destroy your shiny stuff with a single shot. I agree with with Imp, that combined arms are the key to keeping ALL of your units alive and functioning by the end of the battle. A while ago, I posted on the SPWW2 forum about unsupported tanks, which produced a lot of good combined arms tips. Here's the tread - http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=42493. The ultimate thing that I have to remember is patience and self control.

[Mobhack]

GPW = Great Patriotic (anti-fascist) War

Andy

[Wdll]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

GPW = Great Patriotic (anti-fascist) War

Andy

Also known as World War II.

[Double_Deuce]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

Or simply adopt the Soviet model and advance behind a barrage of off-map arty. Worked in the GPW, still works today if you keep the media away. (500 VP for a CNN camera crew? )

Have you seen their ratings lately? I'd give them 150 VP at most (except maybe 250 for Robin Meade).

[Ramm]

Originally Posted by Wdll

ATGMs, especialy the TA variety, are a ***** to deal with. That is just one of the problems that MBTs face (winSPMBT, I am not talking about real life). Even the MBTs that have some kind of defense system, they more and more feel like a waste of points. Even if you abandon the MBTs and get some lighter solutions that also serve as APCs, their cost is high enough to barely make it much better, plus the risk of losing the vehicle and the troops inside. Going infantry only isn't much better, with even light mortars being able to obliterate them, you just need to have vehicles.
So, is the answer a combination of very cheap APCs and cheap tanks with occasional specialised forces like scout/snipe with good Vision, and ATGMs?

Of course you then get in the 200 units limit if talking about PBEM campaigns, but still...

You have just described, in my opinion, the main detraction from SPMBT. The biggest reason many play this game is to get heavy tank action. Hence the name, Steel Panthers Main Battle Tank. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the hardcore tank action that some look for is almost proscribed in post 20th century battles because of size 0 TI ATGMs. These weapons system platforms (especially top attack) should be, in my opinion, increased in cost by at least 50%,

Yours Truly,
Andrew Nault

[hoplitis]

Originally Posted by Ramm

..
You have just described, in my opinion, the main detraction from SPMBT. The biggest reason many play this game is to get heavy tank action. Hence the name, Steel Panthers Main Battle Tank. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the hardcore tank action that some look for is almost proscribed in post 20th century battles because of size 0 TI ATGMs. These weapons system platforms (especially top attack) should be, in my opinion, increased in cost by at least 50%,

Yours Truly,
Andrew Nault

Well the original name was: SP "How_Easy_It_Is_To_Burn_A_Main_Battle_Tank"
but it was too long and had to be shortened!

Personally I find the armor vs AT or ATGM issue one of the more interesting and "educational" aspects of the game (and probably a main real life operational / tactical problem). There is no "Superman" in the game. BTW you can always find combinations of nations and time-frames were the AT/ATGM assets of one side are not "adequate" to deal with the armor of the other side. But even then, an infantry close assault may kill the "Superman" MBT.
As the game is now, you're faced with questions and choices such as where to use my arty (front line "softening" or disruption of the "rear" elements ie counter batterry duty), infantry advancing in front, with, or even behind the tanks, close air support in the begining, middle or end phase of game, etc.
When a game offers you choices, it's a "strategy" game (in the commercial sense), when it offers you targets it's a FPS/arcade one. Peronally I prefer the first variety.