why buy armor?

[Uncle_Joe]

No matter what we do, someone ends up unhappy. All we can do is provide the options to work around whatever shortcoming each individual gamers thinks exists in the game and choosing the force you want to fight is one of the oldest and easiest to do and if you set up three or four of them in advance then pick one at random you'll likely forget exactly what you picked for the AI anyway unless you always pick the same thing

Granted. But this has nothing to do with map size or a specific force I pick or small points vs large points (which is precisely why posting a save isnt going to do anything other than limit the scope of what I'm trying to say!). Perhaps I'm not being clear in what I'm trying say. So, let me give a quick example using SPMBT and SPWW2

In SPWW2, using Sov units in 1944 (using approximate costs since they will vary based on exact weapon choices).

'Standard' tank platoon (T34/85): 243
'Heavy' tank platoon (IS2): 339
Rifle Company (foot): ~230-300
Mech Company (halftrack): ~390-400

The price variance here is fairly small. Being mechanized for the infantry costs about 33%-80% more depending on equipment mix. And a tank platoon costs about the same a coy of foot infantry. Note that the number of long-ranged weapons which can reach out and smoke those halftracks isnt going to be nearly as high as on the modern battlefield (ie, its very unlikely to lose one moving at 15 hexes, unlike the way the ATGMs have a 99% hit/kill if you happen to move in LOS for a single instant).

Here are some examples from 1990 Sov force:

'Standard' tank platoon (T72): 770
'Heavy' tank platoon (T80s): 800-900
Rifle Company (foot): 300-400 (depending on ATGMs vs RPG teams)
Mech Company (BTR): 800-900 (depending on AT weaponry)

The disparity between the vehicle forces and the leg infantry is much higher. Yes, those vehicles are more capable, but in general, so is the infantry. On the modern battlefield, infantry is generally far more lethal to armor at range (especially light armor like APCs/Halftracks etc).

Thats what I see as the 'problem'. To me, the infantry to armor cost disparity should be LOWER in Modern than in WW2 (on average). Yet here its higher despite the ease with which most modern infantry can dispatch vehicles.

On another note, are modern vehicles THAT much more lethal to infantry than their WW2 counter-parts? Yes, their firepower is superior in some ways, but they still have to find the infantry and they still have avoid AT weaponry. And this limits their ability to control the battlefield much the same as in WW2. They are more lethal, but 2x more lethal overall?

Note that I didnt go through and cherry-pick specific units to prove a point. I just randomly opened each game and looked at the cost for what I consider 'typical' units for those periods.

If you think that modern armor/transport is worth more on the modern battlefield than WW2 armor was in its day, then so be it. Its obviously your call. What always brings me back to this issue is that buying all leg-infantry in SPWW2 does not seem to convey the same advantage as it does in SPMBT.

[DRG]

In WinSPWW2 in 1946 a US M3 Halftrack costs 23 points in MBT in 1946 it's 22 points.

A standard US rifle squad in WinSPMBT in 1946 costs 20 points. In WinSPww2 in 1946 it's 26 points( with pretty much the same weapons etc )

In WinSPWW2 a M26 Pershing costs 156 points. An M26 Pershing in MBT in 1946 costs 78 points and that is to ensure that as tanks pregress for the next 70+ years that MBT represents will be not end up costing out of the ballpark

So, in 1946 in WW2 you can buy one Pershing OR HAVE 6 infantry squads. In MBT in 1946 you can have one Pershing or just about 4 infantry squads so for this example, and I picked this simply becasue it's one we can directly compare the two games with, the "infantry to armor cost disparity" IS lower in MBT than in WW2 which is the opposite of your claim for the two games

Don

[Uncle_Joe]

the "infantry to armor cost disparity" IS lower in MBT than in WW2 which is the opposite of your claim for the two games

For that one example, perhaps. But in GENERAL, this is not the case.

But again, at this point, I'm not going to try and argue it. If you want to believe that infantry are more expensive relative to armor in MBT than thats fine. Perhaps I'm just playing 'incorrectly'.

[Mobhack]

Thats what I see as the 'problem'. To me, the infantry to armor cost disparity should be LOWER in Modern than in WW2 (on average). Yet here its higher despite the ease with which most modern infantry can dispatch vehicles.

modern armour has enormous RF, FC, stabiliser, armour (including reactive, HEAT etc), speed and weapons that make the WW2 ones look like peashooters. And they have night fighting gear, often thermal imagers.

Modern APC are similar, with more steel armour than WW2 medium tanks often enough (And ERA and so on).

Infantry has real problems with an armoured opposition (even a ferret scout car) once it has used all 6 or so HEAT rounds up, assuming it had any MAWS in the first place,or if the armoured force refuses to close to effective RPG range. (See scouts, below).

On another note, are modern vehicles THAT much more lethal to infantry than their WW2 counter-parts? Yes, their firepower is superior in some ways, but they still have to find the infantry and they still have avoid AT weaponry. And this limits their ability to control the battlefield much the same as in WW2. They are more lethal, but 2x more lethal overall?

Finding the infantry is best done by not blundering into them. Use your mobility and the battlefield space to deploy scouts observing the likely approach routes of the OPFOR leg grunts. Once spotted, they will be toast for your arty. (But I note you never seem to mention arty in your posts at all??).

They will also be toast for e.g. a ferret scout car firing from 400 metres or so, keeping out of RPG range. Or tank co-ax.

Or, just blast away with arty on the likely approach routes anyway. If you are fighting on postage-stamp battlefields, this will reduce the guesswork involved.

However - post WW2 armour is more involved in the anti-armour aspect of warfare. This includes MICV - those TOW on a Bradley do not come cheap.

If you want to have cheaper armour for anti-grunt work, then investigate the close support (CS) tank formations many OOBs have. These emphasise HE over AP loadout - and HE tends to be cheaper. They may also be older model AFV with less "goodies" to pay for.

If you also want another advantage over leg grunts, then cover your approach with smoke, and use the thermal imaging sights on your APCS and MBT to spot the grunts through the smoke. It is rather good for that!. It is also a reason your vehicles cost more than WW2 armour which are somewhat lacking in the night fighting gear dept. (If fighting an "infantry horde" before TI, then do it in a dark night, say 3 hexes, if you have access even to IR searchlights, just advance your IR vehicles behind a beating line of infantry).

Note that I didnt go through and cherry-pick specific units to prove a point. I just randomly opened each game and looked at the cost for what I consider 'typical' units for those periods.

Like with like is a better test. Otherwise you are comparing a 1930 model T ford with a 2006 Ford Focus GTI.

If you think that modern armor/transport is worth more on the modern battlefield than WW2 armor was in its day, then so be it. Its obviously your call. What always brings me back to this issue is that buying all leg-infantry in SPWW2 does not seem to convey the same advantage as it does in SPMBT.

You get what you pay for in terms of goodies bolted on. Armour costs points, carry capacity costs points, FC costs points, stabilisers cost, RF costs points, Crew costs points, Armour (front/side (costs more as 2 off and larger area)/turret armour, Spaced cost on top of steel, ERA on top of all, etc all costs). Fancy night fighting gear costs, and so does swim capability. Fancy potent modern weapons cost more than WW2 ones.

In WW2 - steel armour is costed relatively more than post war in the CC.

From WW2 a Soviet T34/76 Model 43 (late model #168) costs 75 points
From MBT a Russian T34/76 Model 1943 #3 costs 52 points

From WW2 a USA M3 Halftrack (unit #32) costs 23 points.
From MBT a USA M3 Halftrack (unit #58) Costs 22 points.

So - modern (MBT) armour actually costs you slightly less, when you compare like for like, rather than model Ts with Focuses.

All points systems are a compromise, and need to be adressed to the entire game system for overall game balance, and ours does this. Ditto AI pick lists.


Cheers
Andy