I mentioned in an earlier post that there are too many transport vehicles that end up bogging up the game. I thought I'd expand on that. (note that this is a common problem in wargames. trucks and halftracks, once the drop off infantry, either just get in the way, or are used as cheap scouts/etc. They kind of mess up the game. See Panzerblitz/panzerleader, even squad leader).
In any event; my argument in my last post was that with everything essentially mechanized (i.e. transported by armored vehicles), we have ended up with a Cold War game-not a WWII game. Infantry is undervalued, and thus plays less of a role on the battlefield.
To expand on that: I noticed that, as one example: M8 halftracks cost around 100 points. A squad on a halftrack, though, costs 40 points. With that squad and halftrack, you may think you are buying an infantry unit. But in fact, you are really buying another armored vehicle. The infantry, once it is dropped off (presumably in a town or woodline), is basically trapped. And in game terms, the halftrack, with the machine gun, is the significant weapons system. It will generally park behind the front lines (because it is easily destroyed by tanks/at guns, and is in danger to the infantry in close terrain). All fine and dandy.
But what THAT does, is create a mass of machine guns behind those front lines that essentially halt infantry combat at a given treeline/town. Sending in a platoon of infantry (three squads and a leader) also sends in 4 armored vehicles-not armored enough to engage tanks, and usually not armored enough to engage armored cars, but armored enough to nearly halt infantry progress, and destroy infantry effectiveness.
And the point is, it is basically free. For the infantry, an armored car (100 points) is just as much a threat as a halftrack (part of 40 points-the actual infantry squad is also purchased for that 40 points. How much would the halftrack alone cost: 20? 1/5th of the cost of the armored car?). As I said; a halftrack may not engage an armored car on equal terms (the armored car has a bigger armor-penetrating gun-perhaps 20mm). But it stops infantry, with its mg, just as effectively as that armored car. And, in fact, just as effectively as a 250 point tank. Infantry, the queen of battle, is stifled even more. The heart of WWII combat formations is largely irrelevant in this game because of the excess of armored vehicles (which includes halftracks).
So what is really just a means of transport has a significant impact on the game.
What I would love to see:
truck mounted and leg infantry decks. Even artillery should be more truck driven. Armored vehicles are more rare, and thus more valuable, and thus more important to the game. If armored vehicles aren't everywhere, they are only in particular parts of the battlefield-and selecting or identifying those parts (maneuver and scouting) thus become more important.
So, for instance:
4 scout cars
24 leg/truck infantry (this represents two companies).
8 leg/truck infantry leaders (the platoon leaders)
2 light artillery pieces
2 heavier artillery pieces
4-8 tanks (two platoons of tanks)
2-4 AT guns (one platoon)
In this battle: infantry fight for towns: they then fight for the countryside: leapfrogging from treeline to treeline, attempting to flank, attempting to bring artillery to the key point.
Armor is preserved for the important point-where you are hoping for a breakthrough-or as a reserve-once you've identified the opponents' armor, to stem his attempt at a breakthrough. If they break through, they really break through. They flank enemy held towns, for instance, and cut them off. They break through to the artillery park and destroy enemy artillery. And so on.
To repeat what I said in my earlier post: this would be more of a game of maneuver and positioning.
Right now, the decks are a Cold War model. Everything is mechanized, and everything is fast.
But if everything is fast, then nothing is. (if everything drives 20 miles an hour, nothing is 'fast' in this situation. If only a few things are 20 miles an hour, and marching men are 4 miles an hour, the few things are 'fast').
As a guess: I bet my version of the game would be much harder for the AI. That would be fine: make my version multiplayer only. A more complicated map, with more restrictive terrain, along with more variance in unit capabilities would be tough for the AI, but it would be much more fun in human vs human.
Steve
In any event; my argument in my last post was that with everything essentially mechanized (i.e. transported by armored vehicles), we have ended up with a Cold War game-not a WWII game. Infantry is undervalued, and thus plays less of a role on the battlefield.
To expand on that: I noticed that, as one example: M8 halftracks cost around 100 points. A squad on a halftrack, though, costs 40 points. With that squad and halftrack, you may think you are buying an infantry unit. But in fact, you are really buying another armored vehicle. The infantry, once it is dropped off (presumably in a town or woodline), is basically trapped. And in game terms, the halftrack, with the machine gun, is the significant weapons system. It will generally park behind the front lines (because it is easily destroyed by tanks/at guns, and is in danger to the infantry in close terrain). All fine and dandy.
But what THAT does, is create a mass of machine guns behind those front lines that essentially halt infantry combat at a given treeline/town. Sending in a platoon of infantry (three squads and a leader) also sends in 4 armored vehicles-not armored enough to engage tanks, and usually not armored enough to engage armored cars, but armored enough to nearly halt infantry progress, and destroy infantry effectiveness.
And the point is, it is basically free. For the infantry, an armored car (100 points) is just as much a threat as a halftrack (part of 40 points-the actual infantry squad is also purchased for that 40 points. How much would the halftrack alone cost: 20? 1/5th of the cost of the armored car?). As I said; a halftrack may not engage an armored car on equal terms (the armored car has a bigger armor-penetrating gun-perhaps 20mm). But it stops infantry, with its mg, just as effectively as that armored car. And, in fact, just as effectively as a 250 point tank. Infantry, the queen of battle, is stifled even more. The heart of WWII combat formations is largely irrelevant in this game because of the excess of armored vehicles (which includes halftracks).
So what is really just a means of transport has a significant impact on the game.
What I would love to see:
truck mounted and leg infantry decks. Even artillery should be more truck driven. Armored vehicles are more rare, and thus more valuable, and thus more important to the game. If armored vehicles aren't everywhere, they are only in particular parts of the battlefield-and selecting or identifying those parts (maneuver and scouting) thus become more important.
So, for instance:
4 scout cars
24 leg/truck infantry (this represents two companies).
8 leg/truck infantry leaders (the platoon leaders)
2 light artillery pieces
2 heavier artillery pieces
4-8 tanks (two platoons of tanks)
2-4 AT guns (one platoon)
In this battle: infantry fight for towns: they then fight for the countryside: leapfrogging from treeline to treeline, attempting to flank, attempting to bring artillery to the key point.
Armor is preserved for the important point-where you are hoping for a breakthrough-or as a reserve-once you've identified the opponents' armor, to stem his attempt at a breakthrough. If they break through, they really break through. They flank enemy held towns, for instance, and cut them off. They break through to the artillery park and destroy enemy artillery. And so on.
To repeat what I said in my earlier post: this would be more of a game of maneuver and positioning.
Right now, the decks are a Cold War model. Everything is mechanized, and everything is fast.
But if everything is fast, then nothing is. (if everything drives 20 miles an hour, nothing is 'fast' in this situation. If only a few things are 20 miles an hour, and marching men are 4 miles an hour, the few things are 'fast').
As a guess: I bet my version of the game would be much harder for the AI. That would be fine: make my version multiplayer only. A more complicated map, with more restrictive terrain, along with more variance in unit capabilities would be tough for the AI, but it would be much more fun in human vs human.
Steve
