Point costs and balance

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Lanniken,

1. Did you bother reading any of what I supplied in way of refs concerning UAV's, otherwise you wouldn't be questioning the vision issue. These UAV's are not cheap and cost millions of dollars in the real world, doesn't it make sense they'd be expensive in the game world also!?!

2. APC sounds more like a tactical decision on your part then a game issue, in regards again to vision, several 100 thousand dollars plus for more advanced systems. In the last Patch Post (See thread.) for example I pointed out the LAV-AD had a FC circuit card that by itself cost 100K+. This is the reality of the modern battle field. One of the oldest battlefield axioms is sort of "He who shoots first wins" this is the why countries invest so much in this and other tech. The IFV is in most modern armies a tenant of the "combined arms" theory.

3. The U.S. didn't sign the treaty in banning the use of CM munitions along with other "civilized" countries. So "BOMBS AWAY" and "INCOMING"!!

4. B-2 and other shoot down issues, S-200, 300, 400, and PATRIOT etc. buy them early! One to five game sets AREN'T going to get you the EXPRIENCE you need to make them better. That's why I play 17, 19, 21 or 23 game length campaigns against the AI. Otherwise shoot and prey!

5. DO YOUR RESEARCH OFF LEGITIMATE SITES PLEASE!!!

Regards,
Pat

[Lankinen]

I was not the one to complaint about the cost of UAV's. It was some other poster, and i replied to him/her in my last post about them.

Many of my "statements" i mean winspmbt as a game that might not be as realistic as the real war is. How could it be ?

So, please do not compare my winspmbt stories with real life issues.

But thanks for replies and i would appriciate to read other winspmbt users (a great game!) about those "rules", "what pt cost you plat", "hex" and "is aircrafts worth the pts" questions i asked etc.

Also, those things depend on the map and visibility. In visibility 1, vision is golden! But i usually play high visibility games.

In a desert map where there is no forests or almost anything but desert, tanks rule ok. But in a dense forest map and maps with lots of buildings and forest etc, infantry does rule.

Desert maps are boring so i do not play them quite often, i like maps with forests and such.

But i have to say, infantry is "crap" in those desert maps. No hiding places etc, and opponent can shoot from miles away. In a dense forest, you may even do some assaulting against MBT's and stuff. If opponents is even willing to bring his MBT's to a dense forest.

(So maybe i should have told i do not play desert maps when i made that infantry statement against the armored options.)

Vision 40 in modern battles is very good yes, but for me, i'm satisfied with vision 40 MBT's over IFV's. It's my opinion.

If i can pick between 2 IFV's and 1 MBT with vision 40, it's not a hard choise for me to choose. (1 MBT _always_.)

(And in some cases, i can pick from 2 tanks vs 1 IFV with vision 40, so i pick the tanks and have some vision 40 MBT's as a backup.)

Also, i do apprieciate very much that this great game is made free and thank the programmers, and i'm not complaining in my point of view as much as the response might be thinking.

Also, my facts in this matter are my WINSPMBT experience, i do not link it with anything else. I research my WINSPMBT matters with WINSPMBT alone and WINSPMBT is my truth about WINSPMBT etc. (So, i do my research of this game by playing it, or browsing the army lists.)

BTW, i do not play against AI, i play against human opponents, it's far more satisfying with a human general as an opponent. So, it's 1 game with the troops i pick.

I think i have tested those you have suggested, and the pantsyr seems little bit better against b-2 still :/