AIFV costs, should them be lowered or not?

[pdoktar]

Sorry, trying to clarify. I think no AIFV should cost as much as a same generation MBT, given that both have TI sights. Example the posted polish oob AIFV of 450points vs the same polish oobs Leo 2A4 of 450points. (Sorry I haven´t got the game itself now on hand to check the name of this mystical AIFV)

And for the ammo loadout differences.. AIFV missile loads are 4-10 missiles. 120mm armed tank carries 40 rounds, western loadout being atleast 15 sabot rounds plus 15 HEAT and rest HE. Even if the modern AIFV has TA-missiles and scores destroying hits with all of them, it wipes out 4-10 MBTs (TA sometimes hits not the top, so this is uncertain). So modern western MBTs have 30 rounds to try to do the same and 10 sabots can be counted to be as effective penetration-wise as 10 TA-missiles. So MBTs have more armor and fire-power and can carry riders as their eyes and protection. As you said, AIFVs put against same-generation MBTs will be toasted more often than not. So WHY Polish AIFV cost 450, Polish Leo2A4 cost 450? Smaller, maybe, troops under armor, maybe, but still..

This is the point game-wise: Would you buy an polish 450point 10 TA-missiles carrying AIFV or decide to buy something cheaper, less sophisticated, and save the 400+ point single expenditures for the more survivable 450point more fire-power Leo2A4.

Certainly I would and will leave the MBT-priced AIFVs to the weapons encyclopedia. I would like to buy AIFVs, but can´t stand seeing them get killed by almost any heavy weapon like AT-4 ATGM head-on, as the same-price Leo2A4 has so much less to worry about and can concentrate avoiding head-on TA-missiles, attack helos an modern sabot rounds.

[pdoktar]

The possibility of 450point Polish-AIFV getting killed during combat is much more than a 450point Leo2A4, because it can be destroyed by so many weapon systems more than a Leo2A4 deployed that the front, or even the side armor facing the threat. Yet the potential capacity of this Polish-AIFV to kill expensive armored vehicles is lower, because there are only 10 missiles to use, versus 30-40 rounds of various AP ammo of Leo2A4. So Polish AIFV, comparing to the Leo2A4 is not cost-effective to operate in WinSPMBT battles.

[Listy]

Err, maybe you're useing them wrong?

My warriors have been the mainstay of my forces slapping all and sundry around. Don't look at the single points cost, look at the overall forces cost.

Run a Recce section up front then use the IFV once you find the enemy. You'll soon find it worth it's points.

[hoplitis]

High costs are not necessarily a problem if both sides are "hightech". Then enerybody gets to blow up expensive hardware! It can become a problem when the OPFOR is "lowtech". If you lose a single IFV you must wipe out a couple of infantry Coys to compensate. But there is a fair amount of justice in this. You 're supposed to use the tech gap in your favor to fulfill your victory conditions and take low casualties (ala USA vs Iraq). Listy has a point. Experiment with tactics [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon07.gif[/img] !

[pdoktar]

This thread now brings to my mind the gun acc. rating thread, where the problem was very basic and simple: gun acc of US/GER guns shouln´t be lower than Russian manufactured guns. IT was the about thing with a simple number.

Soon everybody was finding ways to tell that FC and RF and other tech affect so much to the real accuracy of main guns, that the acc. rating doesn´t affect it.. yet it was changed.

The same way here. Tactics are being messed here, as I simply pointed that an AIFV should not have the basic cost of a Modern MBT. I know that tactics is what make the game, but I want to point out a simple single number, that affect the plain desirability of a single vehicle versus others.

Of course AIFV has it´s uses as Narwan said in his first post, but also basicly declared that AIFV-units tend to suffer in THIS game against other units. So why not to use game provided tools in the game environment and recalculate the price for AIFVs compared to other units. Isn´t the cost of units there to balance things out game-wise? So they wouldn´t TEND to suffer, that they would be cost-efficient, and check out Mobhacks post about using airmobile and panzergrenadiers, and his advice of only byuing a few AIFVs since they are expensive and have only limited uses, and to concentrate to less than a 100point APC/IFV.

[hoplitis]

I have no problem with cost recalculation of IFV vs MBT But I must not be done on a comparison of IFV vs "lowtech" APC . The low tech APC is a lightly armored + light inf support or light AA MG lorry to move inf around,while the IFV is a "weapons platform" (ATGMs,more/heavier inf support weapons, better optics etc.). So, different missions.

[Mobhack]

All vehicles use the same points calculation.

If you hang gee-whiz tech off a vehicle, it is going to cost more points, whether it is a tank or an APC/MICV.

The MICV really only makes sense from a dollar value (e.g USA and West can afford umpty-squillion dollars which was a realtivly small amount of their GDP, the FUSSR less so, and it finally bankrupted itself by diverting an economically damaging amount of its GDP to the "cold war poker game").

But points values are a measure of game fighting capacity for one particular engagement and are entirely divorced from the pool of cash the parent nation has to play with, as the points system is designed to provide play balance in single battles for the game.


Cheers
Andy

[narwan]

pdoktar said:
Of course AIFV has it´s uses as Narwan said in his first post, but also basicly declared that AIFV-units tend to suffer in THIS game against other units.

Not exactly, AIFV's will suffer against similar high tech MBT's, NOT against all units. Against slightly less advanced units, even MBT's they'll tend to have the edge.

I think this may be more the old debate (not restricted to this game) of whether or not AIFV's have a place on the modern battlefield at all (as combat vehicles) or whether they are just expensive battletaxis.