M. Bates Posted October 26, 2000 Share Posted October 26, 2000 First of all, if you are looking for a troll, then look at one of my earlier posts, because this is a serious point. Recently I have been playing PBEM opponents where they use Greyhounds as light tanks, by harassing infantry and destroying buildings, and suchlike. Also, I have has some success against the AI by using Greyhounds by German 75mm halftracks against the computer forces. So my argument is that these vehicles should be listed under "Armour", or "Armor" depending on your origin. I don't know what definition of armour has been used, and it is certainly better than any definition I can come up with, but take the halftrack armed with a 75mm gun (251/9 I believe). It's armour plating makes it impregnable to infantry arms fire, except of course for bazookas, but then that is true for all tanks. It's 75mm gun can destroy any Allied tank, with a side shot there is no doubt at all, and I find it is ideal for ambushes. It can also reduce buildings to rubble. The Greyhound with its 40mm can also do great damage with its fast turret with great speed. To finish then, I realise that if someone is maxxing out on armour and then supplementing this with mobile tank-busting support, they are missing out on some other area. To counter that I would say that who ever spends less than their limit on armour in the first place? Very few players I would imagine. ------------------ "War is like the cinema. The best seats are at the back... the front is all flicker." - Monte Cassino by Sven Hassel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.Tankersley Posted October 26, 2000 Share Posted October 26, 2000 "Armor" basically means tanks and near-tanks. That is, fully-tracked tanks, tank destroyers, assault guns, and self-propelled artillery. The definition of "armor" for CM purposes is probably something like "fully-tracked armored vehicle with a gun for main armament." Everything else is lumped under "Vehicles." This includes armored cars, halftracks, trucks, and fully-tracked MG-toters like the Carrier. All of these fail to meet the armor definition for one reason or another. That doesn't mean they're somehow less valuable than armor; some of the units in the vehicles list are pretty nifty indeed. ------------------ Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted October 26, 2000 Share Posted October 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: To counter that I would say that who ever spends less than their limit on armour in the first place? Very few players I would imagine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I do - I start by buying infantry and arty, leftovers to be divvied. And I have a decent win-loss record. Anyway - the units cost is based on their effectiveness, so you don't get anything for free. So for me that would not change anything to the positive. Would make for more boring battles though. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-26-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted October 26, 2000 Author Share Posted October 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I do - I start by buying infantry and arty, leftovers to be divvied.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If it works for you then I cannot argue with that. But I always have the suspicion that if I can knock out some or all of the enemy's tanks, that I can go on to win. The anti-tank capabilities of infantry in CM are limited in that the terrain is not varied enough for infantry to get close to tanks regularly. As to what Tankersley said, well I think that the halftracks could be included with armour in a new category with a different name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pucker Posted October 26, 2000 Share Posted October 26, 2000 What this probably leads to is the dropping of light tanks (accessed under armour), such as the Stuart and Lynx, which are expensive for what they can achieve. And replacing them with M8's and other A/C's. This then gives a player more points to spend on 'real tanks'. Pucker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted October 26, 2000 Share Posted October 26, 2000 Sometime back, I made the suggestion that we should have the "Vehicles" column divided into "Transport Vehicles" (trucks, unarmed jeeps, basic model halftracks) and "Armed Vehicles", placing the up armed HTs there, and a new column called either "Light Armor" or "Recon Vehicles". In the latter case, some of the stuff that may be eligible for "Armed Vehicles" would go into "Recon". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 26, 2000 Share Posted October 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: The anti-tank capabilities of infantry in CM are limited in that the terrain is not varied enough for infantry to get close to tanks regularly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Er, look more carefully at the terrain. I do roughly 50% of my tank-killing with infantry. Against the AI, on QB maps with at least light hills and light tree coverage, I can almost always manage to set up a zook shot or a close assault. It's trickier against human players since they anticipate that kind of thing, but it's by no means impossible. Use view 1, it's the only way to see some of the little hummocks and depressions which can hide infantry from a tank. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted October 27, 2000 Author Share Posted October 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sometime back, I made the suggestion that we should have the "Vehicles" column divided into "Transport Vehicles" (trucks, unarmed jeeps, basic model halftracks) and "Armed Vehicles", placing the up armed HTs there, and a new column called either "Light Armor" or "Recon Vehicles". In the latter case, some of the stuff that may be eligible for "Armed Vehicles" would go into "Recon".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes! That sounds exactly right. I think that the current system of categorisation contains a few, but not many, anomalies. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Use view 1, it's the only way to see some of the little hummocks and depressions which can hide infantry from a tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is very true about the ground depressions. But if my infantry is getting molested by tanks, then my plan has probably gone badly! I mostly use infantry to keep larger numbers of enemy infantry away from victory locations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 27, 2000 Share Posted October 27, 2000 My point is, infantry is just as good at molesting tanks as tanks are at molesting infantry. Ya just gotta be sneaky... Seriously though, infantry is much more useful than for just sitting on VLs. For one thing, one good artillery barrage will sweep your infantry right off of those VLs. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted October 27, 2000 Share Posted October 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: Seriously though, infantry is much more useful than for just sitting on VLs. For one thing, one good artillery barrage will sweep your infantry right off of those VLs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Especially if it is 105mm VT against Conscript Gerbiltroopers. Boy that made me cringe watching it. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-26-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts