why buy armor?

[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.

[DRG]

Uncle_Joe said:

Meh, its no biggie. If you havent seen it yourself, nothing I'm gonna send it going to change your mind.

That's complete BS and you know it. We know vaguely what force it is you are using but no real details. Oh sure there's been a lot of posts back and forth and you have "suggested" "take a Sov Motor Rifle combined arms force" which means WHAT exactly ?? The BTR Co + Tk Pl ???. We don't know if you are buying any mortars or whatever. ALL we know if you are acting as the commander of an mech force dealing with an infantry heavy opponent and losing . ( and obviously unhappy that is happening )We have had examples in the past dealing with complaints about one aspect of the game or another and there is always someone who simply refuses to SHOW us with a save game what they are trying to deal with so we can see what you are seeing. WHY they don't is just a bit suspicious.

Uncle_Joe said:
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).

Well what the hell do you think has been happening these last dozen posts? You've been arguing knowing what you've been doing with the game and everyone else can only guess. You set yourself up for this and then tell me " I don't really want to post a save" That's your choice but don't complain about things then refuse to provide us with information that would help us understand the problems you are having.

Uncle_Joe said:
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).

Buying the AI force is a perfectly valid way of playing the game and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with playing on a 30x50 map. Small maps are my prefence.

The AI is set up to deal with low point games by purchasing the best force to deal with low point games and that means it does NOT go out and buy the high end equipment otherwise, it loses ( sound familiar? ). Charging in with a Mech force guns blazing does not work against infantry heavy forces in the real world either.

Don

[wulfir]

Smersh said:
...play on a larger map.

I think it would be a good solution, yes, if the idea is to get the "value out of the mech elements".

Buying the AI forces is not such a bad idea, though as stated is will take some of the surprise out of it.

A third option, I guess, would be to have a friend buy and deploy the AI controlled forces.

[Nightblade]

Buying the enemy AI force may certainly takes the surprise out, but since i do that i enjoy the game a lot more when playing on small maps (just let the AI deploy them by itself to get some surprise back).

As on small maps, the AI massive amount of very cheap rifle/AT platoons it can buy sometime is annoying to play with. Buying yourself their forces solve entirely this annoyance.

[DRG]

Buying the AI side yourself and allowing the AI to do the deployment is something I have been recommending to people for years and having a friend set up the AI side is almost as old as SP itself

Consider this dilemma

If we set up the picklists to allow the AI to buy, for example, a slightly more mechanized force, maybe toss in a Mech platoon on the first AI purchase go around and set it up so that it will be picked up in the first 1500 points this makes people happy who want to play on a small map and all the people who think they are facing "hordes" of infantry because using the 1990 example and looking at the German force for that year a Pz Gren platoon is going to cost somewhere around the same price as a Jaeger Company. ( "That's too much !!" I can hear the cries now........ ) and that cuts down on the number of units a human player has to face.

However, take that same number of points and increase the frontage and work on a 50 x 50 map instead of a 30 x 50 map and now the AI's trying to cover double the ground with less leg infantry and then somebody plays the game and complains about the "lame" AI and how easy it was to win.

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

Don

[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 )

[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.