why buy armor?

[narwan]

Plenty of room? 50 hexes deep means the actual engagement zone between deployment lines is what, 20 hexes? That's considered SHORT range for weapon engagements! The Dragon for example is classified a SRAT (Short Range Antitank) and has a range of 20. I'm sorry but what you're doing is complaining about the lethality of armor in an battle environment that's considered short range for antitank purposes and very suitable for infantry (tactics).

narwan

[Uncle_Joe]

Whether a European terrain map is 30x50 or 100x150, the acutal engagement ranges are likely to be similar. There is plenty of terrain to block LOS. Sure, there are areas where engagement beyond 1000m is possible, but they are not the rule in Central Europe.

But regardless, your position then is that armor/APCs shouldnt be used in anything except wide-open, long distance engagements? And if so, then they surely are too expensive because that drastically reduces the areas where they can be effective.

I think most people tend to play on FAR too large of a map for smaller point battles. The idea of a company of WarPact troops attacking across multiple kilometers of frontage is highly unrealistic IMO. Frontage for a MR Company on the assault would be closer to 500m, not 1500m. Anything larger would be ridiculously oversized.

But the general gist I am getting is that the only advantage of the mech force is speed to reach the objective. If the objective can be reached via foot, then that is the way to go and vehicles should only be used if foot troops cant properly reach the objective in time. IMO, this is not correct. The points should reflect more than simply the mobility.

[Smersh]

30x50 is what 1.5km by 2.5km?

If a soviet company or battalion was fighting in an area with ATGMs and other heavy weapons, that were un-suppressed they would dismount under cover 1.5km away from the enemy line and move on foot.


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.

In my current game, I had to have infantry armed with RPGs and atgms, move at least 500m infront of tanks and vehicles clearing out ATGMs pockets. any spotted atgms would also be targated for artillery. It worked fairly well. when the enemy ATGMs where taken care of my tanks and APCs could continue moving forward again.

There is always the chance of a suprise ATGM attack, but you have to accept some losses. In the same game, It looked as if everything was clear and the enemy was in retreat, I moved some tanks forward and 2 TOW missles where fired.

I think most people tend to play on FAR too large of a map for smaller point battles. The idea of a company of WarPact troops attacking across multiple kilometers of frontage is highly unrealistic IMO. Frontage for a MR Company on the assault would be closer to 500m, not 1500m. Anything larger would be ridiculously oversized.

I agree to. If he moves to a larger map size he needs to play with a battalion sized force. I normally don't have companies operating more than 500m frontage. and I rarely seperate platoons, unless one is acting as a reserve.

[narwan]

No it is not nor has ever been my position. Feel free to assume though if that helps you.
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. On a 50x30 map there is very little. In that respect alone map size is relevant, on a very small map like yours transports will have much less relative value than on a big map. So you're not just complaining about the lethality of armor under very armor-unfriendly conditions, you're also complaining about the cost of transports (apc's) under conditions where they have relatively little value (and to be very clear: RELATIVELY)!

The whole point of mobility, of mechanised forces, is the ability to move around the enemy AND terrain and engage when and where you want. You seem to mistake that for a high speed move to the flags. Mobility works in all directions. But within the constrictions you prefer there is no room to move around enemy concentrations, little opportunity to outflank or take on the enemy piecemeal. In other words, your force simply lacks the room to move around and do what it does best.

And why are you comparing a WP assault frontage with a ME (movement to contact)? Those are very different things.

Narwan

[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.

[DRG]

Uncle_Joe said:
About Company sized engagements:

30x50 map
~1250-2000 points
all realism settings on
no tank-heavy AI
standard maps (I usually 're-roll' any that have water or are complete city/forest maps)

I dont have any saves at the moment (I guess there are no 'layered' autosaves anywhere, right?).

But its easy to see IMO. Just fire up a battle with those parameters (say, 1990 Sov vs WGerm...take a Sov Motor Rifle combined arms force). <snip>

And what would the battle type be ? Meeter ? Advance ? Assualt ? Delay ? Defend ?

???

I said before, you set it up and post it then we'll ALL know what you are looking at

Don