why buy armor?

[pdoktar]

Three words against ATGMs: ARENA, VIRSS, Mortars. Besides tanks speed, versatility (HE and AP and MG capability) and armor (especially versus the most common type of artillery, mortars) are key ingredients of a balanced battlegroup.

[Uncle_Joe]

To be fair, I dont think anyone is saying that armor isnt useful. It has been amply demostrated by people that it can be VERY useful and fulfills a distinct role.

That said, I think the gist of his argument is whether its worth the points or not in the game. I see people referencing the mobility of armor to shore up a flank etc, but the question is whether you would have an exposed flank in the first place with another company and change of infantry and support instead of a few tanks.

With WW2-era equipment, a platoon of tanks is roughly the same cost as a company of infantry (until you start getting into the super-heavies Tiger/Tiger IIs etc). That seems like a pretty worthwhile trade-off. But for say, a NATO vs Pact circa 1990ish scenario, a platoon of M1A1s cost about as much as TWO companies of standard US infantry. So are you really getting TWO companies worth of value out of those 4 tanks? I dont know....

Obviously if you are on the attack and time is short, the dismounts are not likely to get to the objective easily, but discouting that type of set-up, are those tanks really worth the cost? They are far more likely to be outflanked despite their mobility and they are far more susceptible to 'bad luck'. A single mis-step or mistake and you could lose a 1/4 your force in one swoop. By contrast, it would take a significant amount of time and firepower to eliminate half of a company of infantry.

There does come a point of diminishing returns on infantry though. Arty will wreck a densely packed group of two infantry companies as easily as it will wreck one. So in a 10000 point battle or so, going with massed dismounts probably isnt terribly cost effective either (unless its a big map). But for the smaller engagements, I do agree to a point with the OP that with standard 'armor' it can be hard to justify the cost to field them.

Personally, I think the cost of armor scales up too quickly relative the the cost of infantry in SPMBT (when compared to SPWW2). I mean do modern tanks kill infantry THAT much better than WW2 equivalents? I dont believe that is quite the case. And by contrast, dismounted infantry can have a lot more capability to threaten modern armor than their WW2 counter-parts, further increasing the disparity. Finally, the cost for anti-tank obstacles/mines doesnt seem to scale up with their effectiveness either. They are just as useful vs modern armor that costs 10-15x what their WW2 brethren cost yet their cost is relatively fixed.

Just some food for thought...

[RVPERTVS]

Uncle_Joe said:
That said, I think the gist of his argument is whether its worth the points or not in the game.

Absolutely right! My opinion: yes, armor is relatively expensive compared to infantry (in wspmbt).

[Smersh]

It also depends on the era and the type of infantry formation. In the 1945-1965. A tank company is usually twice the cost of a mechenized infantry company, this doesn't seem unreasonable.

in the later eras, where IFV come into the fold, they are also quite expensive. So unless your buying only leg infantry (which puts you at a disadvantage on larger size maps) the price of infantry and armour is fairly well-balanced.

Most modern infantry post-WW2 fight with a APC or IFV. Unless your playing insurgency or korea, veitnam type games you should be buying mech. troops.

[narwan]

This argument comes up in different variations across the different boards discussing both MBT and WW2. Well known variants are debates focusing on cost differential between specific tanks. The argument goes something like 'a T34 is too expensive compared to a king tiger as you need 3 to have a chance of taking it out and it costs only 30% less'. The fallacy in this reasoning is that it focus on only two units or groups of units while you should look at ALL units in the entire game. For example, a T34 and king tiger are more less equaly capable of taking out a platoon of light infantry (no serious AT capacity). So from that perspective both types of tank need to be of near equal cost.
Which brings us back to the argument here, the cost of armor vs infantry. Don't forget you have to be able to distinguish between different types of armor too. Reducing the cost differential between armor and infantry will also reduce the cost differential between different types of armor. So in no time people would come complaining that (for example) their T72's are too expensive compared to the M1A1.
Then there's helicopters. If armor goes down in price, tank busting choppers should go down too. But then shouldn't sams go down in price too? And if sams go down shouldn't aircraft? And if COIN aircraft go down in price shouldn't infantry type units go down too?
The point being that the whole cost structure is based on all types of units interacting with each other. Not just picking two out and start comparing those. Then there's also the element of getting the right tool for the right job. Often armor is NOT the right tool. Not in the game and not in real life. They are there to take out other expensive pieces of kit, not to hunt down individual troopers. If you're faced with a battle (terrain) were infantry will dominate, and that will be quite often, get mostly infantry. Having the fanciest and most modern piece of kit is never a garantuee for succes, on the contrary it can make you vulenrable.

Doesn't mean the cost structure is perfect as it is now, there have been significant changes throughout different versions of both games but it's a very tricky business to get the balance right.


Narwan

[DRG]

Uncle_Joe said:
Personally, I think the cost of armor scales up too quickly relative the the cost of infantry in SPMBT (when compared to SPWW2).

RVPERTVS said:

Absolutely right! My opinion: yes, armor is relatively expensive compared to infantry (in wspmbt).

For those of you who may have been paying attention to the information provided in the thread about WinSPMBTv3 you may recall I mentioned that infantry is more expensive in V3 than it was in the last release so you guys can debate this further if you like but the change is a done deal.

An infantry squad that cost 14 points in the previous release of winspmbt costs 22 points now in V3. The actual percentage increase varies from unit to unit based on the weapons and becasue we are using relatively low numbers to begin with but the example cited above is approx a 58% increase. Another squad ( taken at random from the US OOB ) that cost 11 points in the previous version now costs 18 points which works out to about a 63% increase so everyone worried that infantry is too cheap can relax. The issue was dealt with quite awhile ago.

As Narwan said above. It's a tricky business balancing this just so. BECAUSE it's not just unit A and Unit B that need to be in harmony and I'll bet everyone on this forum has a different opinion on what that "harmony" should be.

Don

*********EDIT******

Here's a good example of the increase. In the previous version of the game ( the one you have now ) in October 1983 a British Rifle Company costs 250 points. In V3 it's 328. A 31% increase. Not all units go up as high as 60%

[RVPERTVS]

DRG said:
For those of you who may have been paying attention to the information provided in the thread about WinSPMBTv3 you may recall I mentioned that infantry is more expensive in V3 than it was in the last release so you guys can debate this further if you like but the change is a done deal.

That´s good to hear Don, I´m impressed how commited you guys are with the game´s development; maybe with this change and the one marked with number 13 things would be balanced up.

The issue regarding armour cost(I guess) has to do with the fact that infantry was modeled much more capable and resilient than tanks, meaining you had to spend more ammo and time to kill infantry while the cost was much inferior. Let´s wait to see how v3 handles these issues.

Regards
Robert

[bhutnath]

sorry folks, as an auther of this thread I have been away from the discussion due to problems with my PC. But it seems most points have all ready been thrashed out

(some of the points are excellent and thank you for the discussion!)

I did whant to clarify, that so far my experience with SP is very limited. In some (recent) games I have been able to successfuly win by employing only infantry (with light trucks) and lots and lots of arty (160x200 map 15k points India-pak 2010). The idea generaly is to have an advance allong the entire map and force the enemy armor to come to aid of infantry that would be badly out numbered. Use infantry to spot and fix armor and then cluster their collective rears to oblivion. The cluster ammo equiped arty with dumps/trucks seems to make up for lack of armor.
There is often enough atgm and arty troops to implement move and scoot and yet cover 'interested' areas thoughout the game. This helps me avoid enemy mortars and counter battery fire. I realy on reaction fire to get those damn pesky tanks and leave my grunts to the fighting during my turn.

(did I mention I buy no air?)

One thing I have noticed is that infantry traveling in apc often dies with the apc but infantry traveling in light truck will simply jump out with no or little damage. I find the light tr a much better ride. It doesnt make sense to me? is it a bug??

and is it just me, for in these large point games I buy logistic (ammo dump/trucks crates) worht almost 10% of my points!?
-Ak

[narwan]

bhutnath said:

One thing I have noticed is that infantry traveling in apc often dies with the apc but infantry traveling in light truck will simply jump out with no or little damage. I find the light tr a much better ride. It doesnt make sense to me? is it a bug??

Dutch troops deployed to Iraq (not there anymore though) and Afghanistan used mostly unarmored transports just for that reason. Armored vehicles keep the blast effects from penetrating hits inside the vehicle (the armor preventing it to escape) causing extensive damage to occupants. That doesn't happen with unarmored vehicles. While those are more vulnerable to for example mg fire, personal body armor meant that casualties from such fire remained low and usually not life threatening. The vehicles were often write offs when receiving lots of fire, but the occupants remained relatively safe.

Narwan

[Uncle_Joe]

For those of you who may have been paying attention to the information provided in the thread about WinSPMBTv3 you may recall I mentioned that infantry is more expensive in V3 than it was in the last release so you guys can debate this further if you like but the change is a done deal.

From the looks of it, your increase seems to be pretty good. I certainly dont think it was horribly off before, but a few builds ago the prices of the more capable armor really started to increase while the cost of infantry stayed static. That was bound to create some sort of inequity.

From your example, a ~30% increase sounds about right. That would mean you could get an infantry coy and change for the price of some first line MBTs. That sounds closer to the pricing of the WW2 equipment which I think is pretty accurate in reflecting their capabilities.