Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Armor vs Mechanised

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> Armor vs Mechanised Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Armor vs Mechanised - 11/9/2019 11:44:14 AM   
apec

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 5/1/2015
Status: offline
I wonder if someone buy mechanised corps too or buy armor corps only. The former are a bit cheaper but the latter have far better stats; however, what really matter is that logistical footprint and oil consumption is the same for both unit types and I find these two parameters more limiting factors than PP cost. Unless I am missing something (which is usually the case ), at the moment I buy armor units only. Of course, I will be happy to hear different opinions on this.
Post #: 1
RE: Armor vs Mechanised - 11/9/2019 12:20:08 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline
I've seen that as well - armour seems all superior.
But Mechanized units seem to be able to attack without fuel (I think due to the larger infantry component) when you run out of it.

Not sure if just that cuts the difference.

(in reply to apec)
Post #: 2
RE: Armor vs Mechanised - 11/9/2019 12:23:22 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
I think it all comes down to unit stats. Mech defend better and armor attacks better. Here's a side by side of Soviet armor and mech (both 42 tech). As you can see mech has more guns which shoot before tanks in phase two on defense. So they defend better, on attack their guns don't shoot until phase four after tanks shoot, so they are less efficient on attack.

Other than that I think they are basically the same. So to me I see one as for defense and the other for attack.

Jim




Attachment (1)

(in reply to apec)
Post #: 3
RE: Armor vs Mechanised - 11/9/2019 4:09:47 PM   
TrogusP96

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 6/15/2015
Status: offline
Mech, Panzer Grenadier later war American Infantry which were the equivalent of PGs (which he gives 1 tank point) should have more infantry or the tanks especially British and American less infantry if unit differentiation is a factor. How much is unit differentiation intended to be a factor? didn't tanks guzzle far more gas than trucks? Even when considering the small size of American Armored Divisions gas consumptions was phenomenal.

For example from US Army Official History Logistical Support of the Armies vol I p. 318 which is available on line
"Consumption per 50-mile day was taken as 8 gallons per wheeled vehicle, 24 gallons per half-track, and 52 per full track." These were planning assumptions but the army had several years of experience. There is a section entitled "(2) Gasoline—“The Red Blood of War” " so for the allies because everything had to be shipped shipped shipped supply is critical with naval and airpower that's really the game for them. WarPlan is onto something by putting supply, some naval and air detail into the picture. That was the war for the UK and the US after the Fall of France until Normandy except for the few divisions in the Med. So if the developer wants to give the Western Allies a chance to make a less logisitically dependent army maybe some unit differentiation is a good thing beyond just attack and defend factors. It's good to see the effort. So do the values need modding?

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 4
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> Armor vs Mechanised Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.078