Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramm
..
You have just described, in my opinion, the main detraction from SPMBT. The biggest reason many play this game is to get heavy tank action. Hence the name, Steel Panthers Main Battle Tank. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the hardcore tank action that some look for is almost proscribed in post 20th century battles because of size 0 TI ATGMs. These weapons system platforms (especially top attack) should be, in my opinion, increased in cost by at least 50%,
Yours Truly,
Andrew Nault
|
Well the original name was:
SP "How_Easy_It_Is_To_Burn_A_Main_Battle_Tank"
but it was too long and had to be shortened!
Personally I find the armor vs AT or ATGM issue one of the more interesting and "educational" aspects of the game (and probably a main real life operational / tactical problem). There is no "Superman" in the game. BTW you can always find combinations of nations and time-frames were the AT/ATGM assets of one side are not "adequate" to deal with the armor of the other side. But even then, an infantry close assault may kill the "Superman" MBT.
As the game is now, you're faced with questions and choices such as where to use my arty (front line "softening" or disruption of the "rear" elements ie counter batterry duty), infantry advancing in front, with, or even behind the tanks, close air support in the begining, middle or end phase of game, etc.
When a game offers you choices, it's a "strategy" game (in the commercial sense), when it offers you targets it's a FPS/arcade one. Peronally I prefer the first variety.