And then we're back to the "only one effective counter" problem that inspired me to start the whole thread. Everyone by now has a battery of Smerches or MRLS at hand to deal with problems like this, but it's still wrong and should be changed.

_________________
Wargame: Disco Edition

http://i.imgur.com/KwSCdxW.png

I have something like 200 hours or something insane like that. It has been getting excessive.

I'm really big on maneuver warfare, I guess in terms of surfaces and gaps, when I see that sort of surface I just look for the nearest gap. If a forest has been made impenetrable that means that he isn't defending elsewhere.

I'm curious also, are you talking about high-point games or what? I play standard ladder and I've never seen this sort of thing as an issue, and when I did I felt like it was my fault if I drove into the teeth of heavily defended woods.

You can do it very cheaply especially as PACT. All you really need is 2 squads of inf and a flame tank = $50. Obviosuly to make it more secure you would spend extra on recon, supplies, extra inf and flame tanks etc.

On some maps it's not a big issue to leave a forest occupied, but on others it is vital that you control the forests.

You're complaining about what two infantry squads and a flame tank can do?

What happens when you use units in their intended roles is this: they destroy disproportionate amounts of the enemy in terms of cost.

What I've often done in this situation is to mob them with armor just after a preparatory barrage.

One option might be to give artillery a bonus when firing into forests. During WWI and WWII forests were known as deathtraps because the tree trunks would cause airbursts and the forest would become filled with jagged splinters flying at high speed.

I really don't see this as being all that much of a problem though. Flame tanks are indeed LOLWUT but then flamethrowers have been barbecuing soldiers for a hundred years now.

Am I wrong in thinking that there is a rather stringent limit on how many flametanks are available? For NATO it's 4 Zippos if I remember right. That's hardly enough to complain about. Am I really that misguided?



If that's really the case then you should probably control the forests. Get there firstest with the mostest.

FlammPz go at 12, and T0-55 go at 8 + 4 T0-62. Flamer tank total, if you're a pyromanicac: 24.
Zippos can be 8 maximum. and suck

I don't really care, though, I don't use zippos, and unlike post other tanks of their price, PACT flamethrowing tanks can't even do zilch against air units.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

No, but you asked if we were talking about high points games - if its a low points game then $50 is enough - because your opponent has low points too so $50 will probably be sufficient. Obviously if it's a higher points game then more units are likely to be used on both sides.

Also you seem to think that 2 inf squads and a flame tank is nothing - in a forest that can do serious damage (remember you can use the spare transports as cheap suicide recons) - in fact in one game tonight I used exactly that to take out several tanks and many infantry as well as a recon heli.



So what? - you can't see me unless you're directly above me, and then my inf will shoot you down.

You know, I think maybe you're seeing a balance issue when it is in fact a realism issue. Infantry ambushes are so deadly in forests and cities that armor won't go near them. Read up on the Russian experience in Grozny and surroundings. Urban warfare against tanks is actually far worse than it's modeled in this game and in forests the situation is similar especially with ATGM units.

Do you think that your armor should be able to roll right through an ambush?

So its a recon problem right? well the fact that you get ambushed just means someone is getting out played. In the long run you can use indirect fire or ignore it or attack a entrenched position like any other. I don't see how forests are so much more effective than any other other ambush/fortress than the fact that it has concealment and if you think that then how would you fix it?

Looks to me like it's also partly a "firstest with the mostest" problem. Yes, entrenched infantry are very difficult for tanks to deal with in close terrain.

A lot of times these arguments arise in these games when someone has a misconception about tactics-- they think that something should work when it doesn't, and their response is to cry "imba," which is reasonable from their perspective but incorrect.

I never said there was a balance issue? I just responded when you said it was simple to counter with artillery - it isn't as easy as that. Also very few people are foolish enough to try and drive through a forest with a tank, but on some maps you have no choice but to go very near them and that can be a big problem.

btw I rarely have a problem with doom fortresses - you know why? Because I always make sure that it's me with the doom fortresses!



I think the point of the thread, is that due to the recon limitations, it is very hard to clear a forest WITH ANYTHING even if you have much larger numbers.