View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:02 am




Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Main Battle Tankless Meta? 
Author Message
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 684
Our second TY League concluded with BMP horde and T55 hordes being seen as best lists, with Leo 1 also a player. US players took as few M1s as they could by the end as well.

Does anyone else see this issue? We've experimented with a fix, but wondering if there is interest.


Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:54 am
Profile
Private

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:47 am
Posts: 34
Location: Stafford, VA
Play scenarios with doctrinaly correct forces. It's a shame that BF doesn't allow/require you to use mixed T72/BMP units. It would be more realistic if most BMP units had a T72 tax. As for the T55 hordes, well there were T55 hordes. :o


Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:18 pm
Profile
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 684
That's not the fix I'm looking for, and no one is whinging about force make up of the winners.

The frustration is time to play, parking lot, and desire to have competitive lists with the iconic MBTs.

Given the parameters, the solution we are testing is to reduce MBTs in cost by about a fifth, and reduce the points to 85. Doesn't actually make a difference in red-blue balance, but makes a marginal difference in time and parking lot. You can still play the TY force Phil says he designed as the benchmark.

Most importantly, M1s become playable, and T72s become desirable too.


Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:47 pm
Profile
Private

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:47 am
Posts: 34
Location: Stafford, VA
Good luck! I think a good solution is to limit the game to 10 points/foot of table. That and an improved Force Organization.


Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:47 am
Profile
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 684
At 80 points you can already fill the table, but you will avoid the worst.

Still, it died today solve the underlying issues since our experience is a good BMP2 horde gets better at lower points while MBTs get worse.

Getting the ratio right has many more advantages.

As for force changes, I'm curious, but we already experienced what can happen when ratios are wrong, but the force limits the problem - eventually the hidden problem blows up on you because you change the orgs or special rules or whatever. (See V3).


Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:56 am
Profile
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:04 pm
Posts: 2117
Location: NoVa
Shortreengage wrote:
Good luck! I think a good solution is to limit the game to 10 points/foot of table. That and an improved Force Organization.
That can kill the west German MBT.


Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:08 pm
Profile
Private

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:47 am
Posts: 34
Location: Stafford, VA
SECfootball wrote:
Shortreengage wrote:
Good luck! I think a good solution is to limit the game to 10 points/foot of table. That and an improved Force Organization.
That can kill the west German MBT.


No, just the Leo2 Tank Company. The Marder Mech Heavy Team is just fine.



Marder Panzergrenadier Kompanie HQ (p.25) - 1x G3 Rifle, 1x Marder (1 pts)

Marder Panzergrenadier Zug (p.26) - 3x G3 Rifle with Panzerfaust 44 anti-tank rocket, 2x Milan missile, 3x Marder (7 pts)

Leopard 2 Panzer Zug (p.22) - 3x Leopard 2 (33 pts)

Marder Panzergrenadier Zug (p.26) - 3x G3 Rifle with Panzerfaust 44 anti-tank rocket, 2x Milan missile, 3x Marder (7 pts)

M113 Panzermorser Zug (p.27) - 3x M113 Panzermorser (3 pts)

Jaguar 2 Jagdpanzer Zug (p.27) - 2x Jaguar 2 (3 pts)

Luchs Spah Trupp (p.30) - 2x Luchs (1 pts)

Gepard Flakpanzer Batterie (p.32) - 2x Gepard (5 pts)


60 Points


Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:56 pm
Profile
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:04 pm
Posts: 2117
Location: NoVa
@@Main Battle Tankless Meta?

@@No, just the Leo2 Tank Company.

So your answer is reaffirming the title?

Isn't this thread about the lack of MBTs? Isn't your answer in collusion with the problem?


Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:00 pm
Profile
Private

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:47 am
Posts: 34
Location: Stafford, VA
SECfootball wrote:
@@Main Battle Tankless Meta

Isn't this thread about the lack of MBTs? Isn't your answer in collusion with the problem?


No, my answer @ 60pts includes 3 Leo2 MBTs. 3 is not a lack of, it is just not a plethora.


Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:43 pm
Profile
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:04 pm
Posts: 2117
Location: NoVa
@@3 is not a lack of, it is just not a plethora.

A plethora would be a full company of 13 or 14 tanks.

A minimum size company is 7 tanks. 3 tanks is still fairly tankless.


Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:00 pm
Profile
Private

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:47 am
Posts: 34
Location: Stafford, VA
SECfootball wrote:
@@3 is not a lack of, it is just not a plethora.

A plethora would be a full company of 13 or 14 tanks.

A minimum size company is 7 tanks. 3 tanks is still fairly tankless.


It's the same as not being able to run a company of King Tigers in FOW.


Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:12 pm
Profile
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:04 pm
Posts: 2117
Location: NoVa
@@It's the same as not being able to run a company of King Tigers in FOW.

Really? Leo2s and Abrams where the MBTs of 1985. They were not specialized and were designed and priced to be in all units eventually. Both countries were well on their way to make that happen. Yet there is a lack of those tanks in TY. Those tanks are what made the book very readable. King Tigers were never meant to be in every unit. They were a specialized AFV to be used in certain situations.


Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:42 pm
Profile
Private

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:47 am
Posts: 34
Location: Stafford, VA
SECfootball wrote:
@@It's the same as not being able to run a company of King Tigers in FOW.

Really? Leo2s and Abrams where the MBTs of 1985. They were not specialized and were designed and priced to be in all units eventually. Both countries were well on their way to make that happen. Yet there is a lack of those tanks in TY. Those tanks are what made the book very readable. King Tigers were never meant to be in every unit. They were a specialized AFV to be used in certain situations.



I'm talking about points, not battlefield roles. You can't run a company of KTs at 1515 , just like a Leo2 Company at 60 points.

"Leo2s and Abrams where the MBTs of 1985". Not all Panzer Battalions were equipped with Leo2s in 1985 and only about 2/3s of US forces in country fielded the M1. 1AD and I suspect a large portion of 8ID(M) (Crazy Eights chime in if you have any info please) still had M60A3TTS. I'm glad you liked the book. It was okay. He was weak on Soviet Org and Doctrine. Sword Point and Bright Star were much better.

You focused on my 10pts/foot suggestion. You did not comment on my force org suggestion. Force org is the real problem. The elephant in the room is the fact that like the author, BF screwed the pooch(or just wanted to sell a metric crapton of BMPs) on Soviet force org and doctrine. BMP and BTR MRCs very rarely operate without attached tanks. BF should have required most MRCs to have 3-4 T72s in a mixed unit. It's how they fight. Your full strength BMP2 company goes from 24 to 41 points with a full 4 tank platoon. You could do under strength or FSE minus the CRP at about 30 points. Lots of other problems with the Soviets but, I'll leave that another day. Something does need to be done because as it stands in 15mm, it looks like Warhammer 2K on the table.


Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:26 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 13 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

34,800,542 Views Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y