why buy armor?

[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.

[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).

[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.

[Marek_Tucan]

On such a small map I'd use APC's merely if I cannot afford "real" tanks and enemy is supposed to have weak AT defenses, and I don't use them as transports per say but as mobile MG pillboxes or to have a rapidly deployable reserve. Or, if possible, i buy some cheapo old reserve tanks instead (for Czechoslovakia my favourites are T-34/85!s, well into 1980's still in reserve depots )