Mechanized Infantry

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Mechanized Infantry

HuskerMike
I have seen a couple of discussions on Mechanized Infantry and how useless (in the game) they are.

1. Why was there Mechanized Infantry?

By WW2, if tanks attacked without infantry support, they were often slaughtered. (Try driving off-road with all your windows covered, except a 10"x2" strip. Now imagined people shooting at you as you drive by. Since infantry could not keep up with armour, Mechanized infantry was developed to keep up with the tanks (Most infantry rode in trains, rode in wagons, or walked). The purpose of Mechanized infantry is not to fight the enemy. Their purpose is to protect the tanks so the tanks can fight the enemy. (Mobile artillery (tracked) was developed for the same reason). Mech Infantry were on tracked vehicles. Motorized Infantry (mainly US and Britain) were in trucks. They were to just fight as regular infantry, not keep up with the tanks.

2. Axis & Allies Application:

Mechanized infantry should be mainly support units (like artillery). Example (6-sided die) (benefits are cumulative):

Infantry        1-2-1   Cost = 3
Artillery        2-2-1   Cost = 4 (+1 to Infantry and Motorized Infantry)
Motarized Infantry    1-2-2   Cost = 4

Tanks           1-3-2   Cost = 5 (Can blitz)
Mechanized Infantry (Halftracks)     1-2-2    Cost = 4 (+2 to tanks, can blitz)
Mobile Artillary       2-2-2     Cost = 5   (+2 to tanks, can blitz)

 3 Infantry + 3 Artillery:

6 targets, 1 movement, 12 attack pips, 15 defense pips, Cost = 21 (non-motorized)

2 Tanks + 2 Mech Infantry + 2 Mobile Artillary:

6 targets, 2 movement (& can blitz), 16 attack pips, 18 defense pips, Cost = 28

This analysis could also include AT guns.

So, for defense, you want an Infantry/Artillery combo.

For offense, you want tanks & support units.

Tanks, without support, are not very useful.

A fearsome Panzer Division would attack with Panthers, Panzer Grenadiers, and Wespes & Hummels (Wasps & Hornets).

Likewise, a fearsome Russian Guards Armor Division would attack with T34/85's, Halftrack Infantry, and SU-152's (Germans called them Lumbering Beasts).

In either case, where did these Divisions go? Wherever they wanted to go!

So, if you want to include Mechs/Halftracks and want to make them useful, they need to support tanks and tanks need to need them to be useful.

Go Big Red!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mechanized Infantry

Zim Xero
Interesting evaluation.  I guess I've been letting realism slide in my thinking since there are so many such issues.  You make a good case here.

In many games, it is a goal to keep the unit type count to a minimum though, so adding three similar units might be unappealing.  For a simple game, maybe the three types can be combined into one.  Another unit not much accounted for is mobile AA.  Weren't these used as anti-tank in a pinch?
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mechanized Infantry

SantaClaus
I think it would be awesome to rewrite NWO with this added. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do it right now (and probably don't really have the coding skills either). :(
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mechanized Infantry

eurofabio
In reply to this post by HuskerMike
What drive me crazy is when tanks move is 2 and mechanized move is 3.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mechanized Infantry

ubernaut
In reply to this post by HuskerMike
while i would not disagree that your suggestions may be improvement i would not agree with the premise that mech inf are useless. moving the fodder up to the front lines is always useful.

;)