posted 08-14-99 04:46 PM ET        

---

Those people who don't know what an apc is.....a armed almost tank which carries heavy infantry to the battle. Well in Alpha....is it worth using infantry? and how do u get them close to an enemy base without getting eaten up by air or mobile units. Heres an interesting way of doing it. Use the unit maker to select a tank....then put the transport on it....also give it the best armor...also give it the structs..so u get another movement bonus also clean is nice. (Not worth support on a transport) Build that unit then......build a infantry which is highmoral...and blink...and the best gun possible....no need of armor. You are trying to limit the time to build....If it takes to long to build both units....well i would rather have a tank with a big gun.
Use the transport to ferry the troops almost to the base. (hopefully both units are elite..so u also get another move) then hit the base or unit your attacking then with your other movement move back to your apc.....so if u are playing a board with almost no water and u want to go across rolling terrain fast so u don't get hit...use an apc. You may think its a stupid idea but i always enjoy the extra 25% + 50% (elite) + blink = death the base or unit(just no blink..)

Another bad part of this tatic is the 1 transport capablity. You may even want to forget about the highmoral on your infantry if u want clean. So no support. Specially on those large territories in one on one games...its affective. I would suggest drop infantry if u want to get close to a base or front lines..but if the enemy has air...your screwed. (sorry for the language) The good armor of the tank..with its ability to disengage is affective trust me.

posted 08-15-99 04:31 AM ET         

---

On paper this looks like a great idea (and even works great to some extent in RL), but I see several problems with this strategy in SMAC.

1) If the transport gets killed, the other units get "collateral damage," making them easy prey for the unit/units that killed the transport. Not only that, but the units in the transport are probably going to be weak in the armor area- since it would be pointless to build the APC and also equip the units that it is carrying with strong armor as well- so they will no doubt be even easier prey afterwards.

2) Putting so many units in one square together is IMHO a waste of units. The point in having several units is to spread them over the map. This gives you a greater area of control, and also gives you better flexibility during a war with another Faction. The "adjacent rule" (which to me doesn't seem very realistic) in SMAC makes it impossible to move your units in enemy-controlled territory unless you also have several units in the area. Again, the problem of collateral damage comes up if the APC gets killed and subsequent other units in the square get killed as well.

3) Building an APC forces you to rely on it. Without that armored carrier, your forces will be sitting ducks when their turn is through to counterattack with no armor on them. Don't forget about those pesky Red Licorice Whips either. =)

While the idea really isn't that bad, I don't see it as very viable in-game. If I want to make a strike deep within enemy territory, I occaisonally use a similar strategy. Rather than rely on one "APC" and sticking units in it, I create a few Rovers with strong armor. My other troops go on their merry way and obliterate everything in their path, while I use the Rovers as "counter-counterattack mechanisms." What this means is that I move them to where I think they will be most needed, whether that be in the thick of battle or behind the fighting troops. If one of my units gets severely damaged, or in a bind, then I do one of three things: 1)move the Armor Rover to that unit in order to protect it or 2)move the damaged unit to the Armor Rover -preferably "behind" it so that the Armor Rover uses it's Area of Control to prevent any incoming units from attacking the damaged one, while at the same time keeping the damaged unit safe from collateral damage or 3) move both units into a tactically better position.

I only like to use this strategy when I intend to do a "Sherman run" through an enemy's territory. Most of the time I just do a lot of other fun stuff. =) I hope you don't think that I'm putting down your idea. Personally I think it's a good idea, but it just doesn't work in the game.

posted 08-16-99 03:13 AM ET         

---

Zoetrope: I believe you're talking about the ECM Jammer? LoL I'm not sure about the name either.

In regards to the Infantry vs. Mobile argument, personally I think that building infantry is a waste of materials and turns. The bonus that Infantry have against bases is largely negated by the fact that they can't move worth a damn, and they aren't useful in the field against other units. Infantry are siege units, meaning they aren't worth a damn in the middle of enemy territory. Also, if they attack a base and are severely weakened afterwards, they are sitting ducks. The mobile units allow you to move away from a base area to a safe location after the initial attack. Since it takes a full turn to "heal," you might as well use those extra movement points to go somewhere safe, right? I find it faster, easier, and more efficient to use mobile units. Also, if I see that an enemy city is heavily fortified, I just destroy it from the inside with my Probe Teams. They are infinetly more useful than infantry units, and do much of the same thing (help destroy enemy bases). Anyway, that's my two cents on the matter.

posted 08-16-99 04:35 AM ET         

---

There are a couple specific instances where they are economical to build, using an infantry chasis.
1) When you have a sea base next to land. It's far cheaper than building a foil transport to station at the base so your troops can have free movement onto the land mass.
2) They are great for surprising an attacker when he safely parks his mobile units out of range of your infantry. This works only when it's unexpected.
3) Getting an artillery piece out of range in a harrassment campaign. This is when you are weakening an attacking force.

Generally, though, they aren't worth the trouble. Unless they are elite. The 2 extra moves are quite nice for an infantry unit.

~~Weird Uncle Jesse~~

posted 08-16-99 09:01 AM ET         

---

There are several advantages to using infantry.

1) Infantry is far cheaper when it comes to making an unit with both armor and weapons. Putting armor on a rover or a hovertank will easily double the price.

2) When attacking a base, Infantry gets the 25% bonus and there are no negative multipliers like the ECM Jammer for rovers/hovertanks. Since ECM is free if you build a defensive unit [weapon less then 1/2 armor value], the AI uses a lot of ECM units. That's a big disadvantage for high mobility units.

Obviously, the best army would consist of a combination of rovers/hovertanks and a strong infantry detachment. Instead of armored APCs, you just use your infantry to cover the movements of the rovers. Use the cheap, defensive infantry units to absorb attacks. Have a few assault squads to take out the ECM units, and use the rovers to clean up. Don't forget to bring a few formers with you to build roads and bunkers as you need them.

posted 08-16-99 12:03 PM ET            

---

One thing about infantry being immobile - they move around just fine on magtubes.

This is particularly good if you're playing against the AI, or a human who's left his formers on automatic.

Personally, I build about 30% infantry, though that depends on the opposition. If AAA isn't widespread I'll let choppers do the attacking, and build rover skirmishers to take the territory.

posted 08-20-99 08:16 AM ET            

---

One of the best tactics that i use is:
Build a high armor, low weapon infantry
Build a high weapon, low armour chopper
Use the chopper to take out all units in city
Use infantry to take over city
Assign infantry to that city
Use infantry as your garrison

If you have a high police rating, non-lethal methods is always useful on the infantry as it can rid you of the drones almost immediately.
This was done with the Spartans so it might not work for other factions.

-Biddles

posted 08-20-99 12:46 PM ET            

---

The best defensive units are mobile.

The only advantage of an infantry defender is that it can be upgraded to an attacker.

Mobile defenders, on the other hand, can go somewhere if needed, and in particular can attack mindworms that wander into town.

I like Drop APC's because they are unsinkable. Without naval supremacy you can still island-hop with a Drop APC. Also, if you use an Infantry Drop APC (looks like a crawler) you can Armor and Trance the thing fairly cheaply. I have even dropped one onto a Former to protect it from a worm attack ...

I like Drop Infantry but only if it's "Elite". Infantry can carry armor AND weapons, making them very versatile -- they can even garrison a town until a mobile defender arrives. (Drop Infantry easily outpaces non-drop Hovertanks.)

posted 08-22-99 12:39 PM ET            

---

'APC's are not worth it, not because they are no good...

but simply because we have got no chance to use them effectively as they come in too late in the game. Same problem with the mighty Gravships

Combined Arms - if you are interested in unit designs, I'll bring up one of the past threads for you (Mind Machine Interface).

posted 08-22-99 09:35 PM ET            

---

Actually there is use for APC's with a rover chassis, or possibly even an infantry chassis.

When attacking a base that likely has ecm defenders, use the apc to move the ground pounder (infantry) next to the base, then attack. this gives the grunt the ability to attack without having to stand next to the enemy base for a turn, which is a dangerous thing to do. and if your transport unit still has a movement point left after unloading the grunt the transport could be used to take the base after the last defender is eliminated.

Oh, and by the way, Combined Arms, in real life in the US army the APC's are not exactly held way back. M1A1 tanks and Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles (APC's) fight together on the battle field, mixed together at the company or even platoon level. Of course this doesn't really apply that much to the game, as in the game the APC's can have no weapons.

posted 08-22-99 10:18 PM ET            

---

OK military boy, this is how the "mobil" army works. Forexample, did you see apcs in the 1st divisions brake out into the desert during gulf war. Yes the first div. does have bradlies and yes there were very close by but you forget the bradley isn't designed for tank battle, or is it able to sustain a 80mm shot from the average t-74. Although alot of 74's do have alot bigger gun, im just telling the smallest caliber.

Desert Warfare doctrine says that the infanty are only to be used to take out obsticals, hold ground, take on enemy infanty, and enginneer roles. Tanks are the only units able on the modern battlefield that should take on other units. Although the infantry are able to attack tanks with tow missiles and helfires. Infantry although are very useful out taking out tanks in the european field, which usually provides more cover and better firing positions. Also with the development of anti-missiles protection on new tanks, this will make it critical for the infantry to not attack other tanks.

Also if you wanted to know, the army is working on new upgrades and versions to the abrams. Such as anti-missile gear, stealth improvements, anti-ir coatings and cooling of exhaust. And many times the army will use bigger than platoons to attack positions and hold groud. because you must remeber that infantry are the only unit that can completly control and hold land. Tanks can be destroyed easily with airpower and enemy tanks. Infantry are elimanated at a very slow and difficult process even with air power. For example look at the battle of the Buldge, during ww2. Although germans had no airpower, and noncommuncation at times, they did have a massive amount of state of the art tanks. Yet, why was the 101st infantry division able to hold out so long, even with out much anti-tank weaponry. Because the germans had no good infantry. Tanks couldn't go into the dense forests and such. (Although they did go through the ardense (not sure if i spelling that write) during the attack on france). But fundamentaly you are very correct bubbas, the united states army and marine core is a highly mobil combined force of infantry and tanks.

posted 08-23-99 04:20 PM ET         

---

Well, WW2 is not a good example, and neither is the Gulf War. After all, the Gulf war had a highly mobile Allied force fighting an almost immobile Iraqi army when the Allies had absolute air superiority on a field which offered little to no cover against air attacks. Hardly something you expect to see again.

In WW2, we were only beginning to develop the principles of armored warfare and the anti-tank weapons weren't very good. By far the most effective weapon in those days were satchel charges, but that forced you to get way to close to the tank.

Also, the Germans did not have "state of the art" tanks. The Panzer III and IV were undoubted better than the English and French tanks, but the best tank at the beginning of WW2 is undoubted the Russian T-34. Sloped armor, wide tracks, and a decent gun. Too bad the Soviets didn't know how to use their T-34s well. Toward the end, the Geramn Panther and Tiger were very good tanks, but the tide of war already turned against them by then.

posted 08-23-99 07:05 PM ET            

---

ok, i really hate fighting over history but this is what i meant. The mark 4 was very good compared to the t-34. Yes sloped armor, a medium sized gun(i think 80mm) and good mobility and tradition russian ruggedness made it the best tank of the war. Yes the germans didn't have the best tanks, even at the earily part of the war, france and england had better tanks, just they unfortunatly used them in the infantry support role rather than in a tank division where they could have maximized there bigger guns and more armor plating.

oh yes.....about the gulf. Unfortunately you are be decieved by us propaganda. Hell i am a american and for all i know is that you could have been there, but lets put something very clear, the iraqis weren't nonmobil. The first division faced 2 whole divisions in that war(acouse they abiliterated them) that were mobil, but when a country like iraq has t-54s and t-72/74s as there main tanks, and bad generals who didn't understand nonstatic warfare, because of to many years of fighting static warfare on iran. Better fire control and intelligence won that war. And yes air power did do excellent, perhaps it even almost won the war. But never forget, wars aren't won in the air, there won in the mud. look at Kosovo. Oh yes, the desert is an excellent place to hide. Many parts of Iraq have vast tunnels between mountains(rather hills) and large deserts of endless nothinginess. Air power was affective because we had j-stars which found the tanks. (although only when they were movin). Also to fool america, the iraqs used nets and other camoflauge which was able to make tanks and vecicles invis from ir weapon sekers. (can't spell sorry) The iraq army was still functional unit at the end of the war, remeber the kurds? we should have continued the war. Although, i wouldn't want my kid to have to garrison a country like that, when im old enough to have them acouse with a wife. we don't need another korea which drains from us defence budgets in useless defence. Although i do believe defending korea is a safeguard against china and shows american influence in the area. .....Japan can't do anything....lol

posted 08-24-99 05:24 PM ET         

---

----------
oh yes.....about the gulf. Unfortunately you are be decieved by us propaganda. Hell i am a american and for all i know is that you could have been there, but lets put something very clear, the iraqis weren't nonmobil.
----------

US propaganda? Ummm... The Iraqi Army was effectively immobile because of several reasons. The most important of which was that they *stayed near roads*. The Iraqi Army did not have a practical way to navigate the desert (no GPS for them hehe), so they stuck near the roads and other known landmarks while moving in the desert. Not only that but, as stated earlier, they didn't have air support. UN aircraft were able to freely run around as they pleased and bomb the living daylights out of any and every Iraqi military units/installations they saw. It's no fun to be fighting in a war and then find out that you're basically a very-slow moving target. Not only that, but a horribly trained slow-moving target. Having the biggest army doesn't necessarily mean it's the best. Although in Russia's case, I might make an exception (all those people, hehe). Anyway, just thought I'd drop in my two cents.

posted 08-24-99 06:29 PM ET            

---

Ok this is what i mean by propaganda.....many people think that the iraqs were a push over because they had no air power or mobility. Thats what the pentagon says and tells the newspapers and sprinklies all down to us. True, at the end of the war, Iraq had no fixed wing aircraft left(only helos) and had nearly 85 percent of his mobil forces destroyed. Not including the destruction of most of his mobil missile weaponry.(by un inspectors) Well let me tell you something, on the first day, people had predicted another vietnam in the dessert was going to happen. Although this is out of reality, they had proper reason. Iraqis had been fighting the past ten years, and showed they could accomplish with little tech they had. For example during the iran-iraq war, several mig-21s did an amazing job of blowing up the nuclear plant in Irans capatol. Iran's capitol is damn hell zone of triple a, similiar to Bagdhad. The Iraqs used a very good french radar detection system with a great system of russian control. The whole defence system was destroyed because of two things, Nighthawks and Caclms( i think thats the airforce name for them)(cruise missile launch from b-52....big boom). If we had not developed or used those weapon systems the war could have lasted up to a year, with higher allied casualities. You say that iraq was destroyed because of overwhelming airpower which caused no mobility, but you haven't mentioned how good iraq really was. I'm not saying they would have won, but i and every person who knows his stuff on the gulf will say that iraq could have been a blood bath.
Overwhelming airpower didn't spell defeat for Iraq, the 40 f-117s and the few hundred cruise missiles did. Are you guys even aware how many sams and triple A, iraq had. Try a couple thousand units, all throughout the desert. Read the reports from the marines flying low and slow in harriers. Damn, look at the stupid british fighters, tornadoes i mean. They had the highest death rate.

oh yes, read "and kill migs" (third edit.), it shows how "dead" the iraqs were when it came to fighting in the air. Also, it was the strategy that won the war on the ground. If we had attacked the Iraqs with an amphibious invasion like we were faking to throw off the iraqis, it would have even been worse. Oh yes, the Iraqis weren't only on the roads. yes, i do have to admit, they did stay on the roads alot due to resupply. But why weren't we able to destroy missile launchers(skuds), because they were in the dessert and knowone even had a confirmed kill on one of them. Rommel understood that the desert is a good hiding place, acourse he also understood if you were ever found in the desert, you were a sitting duck. Also during the beginning of the war, the iraqs were quite mobil. They actually attacked a saudi town, on the border which led to the death of several marines. In the beginning, they were quite daring. Its a shame(well good for us actually) that iraq tried to hide, rather than fighting on the offence. It came down to poor command, who didn't realize the power of airpower.

posted 08-26-99 01:12 AM ET            

---

Two myths:

1. Nothing good ever came out of the Korean War.

2. Nothing good ever came out of the Gulf War.

Two realities:

1. South Korea

2. Kuwait

... neither of which would exist had they not been defended.

It is unfortunate that North Koreans and Iraqis are still suffering under their respective regimes, but some perspective is in order. There are a lot of South Koreans who won't starve and a lot of Kuwaitis who won't get nerve-gassed, reason being some foreigners somewhere decided it was worth using violence to keep that from happening.

Knee-jerk pacifists make the mistake of thinking that fighting under any circumstances is wrong. Certainly the most morally profound concepts such as those expressed in the Emancipation Proclamation fly in the face of such closed-minded dogma.

If life is sacred it is freedom that makes life sacred, and therefore freedom is more sacred than life. To believe otherwise is to believe in slavery -- to trade an Abraham Lincoln war for a Neville Chamberlain peace.

Game theory pokes some more holes, but that's another topic altogether.

posted 08-26-99 05:53 AM ET            

---

Interesting facts about Hitler and the German tanks:

The Tiger tank was intended to be a light and fast tank, but Hitler had a fascination for heavy armour, so he ordered the engineers to add more armour and a heavier gun. They did that, but they could not make the gun as long as Hitler wanted, since it would make the tank unstable and tip over easily in terrain. Hitler also insisted on personally making the battle plans for the first Tiger attack, which resulted in all six Tigers in the attack were destroyed by the same Russian AT gun.

The Tiger was good, but the German army wanted a light tank, not a heavy tank, so they designed the Panther to take the role originally intended for the Tiger. To avoid Hitler interferring in this design as well, they designed another tank at the same time, to please Hitler. This tank had even thicker armour than the Tiger. They only made a few tanks of that model, since it was too heavy in comparison to its engine to travel in terrain, and it destroyed most roads that it went on.
The Panther, on the other hand, was a success.

posted 08-26-99 10:29 AM ET         

---

True, the SCUD-hunt was among the most idiotic things done during the Gulf War. Trying to hunt down mobile missle units in an entire country is just silly.

At the same time, the Gulf war certainly demonstrates what happens to an armored force stuck in the open against airpower. Over 2 regiments of armor were killed on a single stretch of highway as they attempted to withdraw from Kuwait.

BTW, the first German Mark 4 tanks had short barrel guns and were intended for infantry support. It was only the later revs of Panzer IV, deployed after Barbarossa, that had sloped armor and longer guns.