There has been some talk during the debrief and in the guest book about the LT/ACMG theorem. There has also been some talk about me designing rebel uniforms and attempting to over turn the LT/ACMG theorem. What is it? Does Captain Kev just not like Light Tanks or Armored Cars w/ Machine Guns?
First of all, here’s what my version of the LT/ACMG theorem is. The player (usually as attacker) tends not to buy a mixed army, but instead buys mostly (usually upwards of 75% of his total units) LTs and ACMGs. The other units purchased (after a brief, but scientific survey in which I asked two TPG2 players and my cat) are normally an infantry type units to hold victory point areas, engineers to do engineering things, rarely artillery, medium tanks, and very rarely heavy tanks.
I fully admit that I’m a person that tends to follow the LT/ACMG theorem as well. While I was playing the original Perfect General, I discovered that the attacker could get away with using only Light and Medium tanks, usually in a 3:2 ratio. Occasionally, I would splurge for a heavy or mobile artillery. This practice has carried over into TPG2. In the beginning, I didn’t use nearly as many ACMGs as some do. However, I quickly discovered their power; firing three (four if you count anti-aircraft) times per turn.
Why is it that the LT/ACMG practice is so wide spread? Did the Anonymous General just say so and we believed him? I doubt it. I don’t think there’s a follower in this group. If someone presents a theory, it’s going to be looked at with a magnifying glass. My theory is that the LT/ACMG theorem came into being because that is simply the most effective way to get the maximum amount of firepower and mobility on the board.
Notice I said fire power AND mobility. Two heavy tanks cost the same as four light tanks and has the same total fire power (as measured on the TPG2 unit table). However, the heavy tanks have a large range advantage and a larger hit point advantage over the light tanks. I would submit that on any map, two heavies would win against four lights (they probably wouldn’t win every time, but I think 80% of the time would be about right.) However, there are four light tanks. Four light tanks can hold three VP locations and still go looking for more. Four light tanks can kill (probably) four bazookas in one turn while the heavies could only kill two (admittedly, the heavies could stand being hit by four bazookas for one turn, while two light tanks may die.) Four light tanks can easily out run and out maneuver two heavies.
The lights also have the advantage of putting more tubes on the field. In situations where power is less important than numbers (such as a armored car company assaulting a city), it is more important to have many guns and many units than fewer more powerful units. Perhaps giving Earl more heavy units would convince players that heavy units are worthwhile.
The other reason the LT/ACMG theorem is so popular lies in the basic unit tables within TPG2. That is the unit value is not directly related to the cost of the unit. The cost of the unit does not take into consideration the damage inflicted by the unit, the hit points of the unit, or the unit’s range. The value of a unit in any given scenario must be determined by the player during (or before) the unit purchase screen. This tends to be somewhat subjective, but a good deal of common sense applies.
What all this means within the game is that we perceive the usefulness of light tanks and armored cars with machine guns to be greater than their relatively inexpensive cost suggests. They are cheap enough that if some get into trouble, that’s okay, there are dozens more behind it. The have some excellent abilities that other units do not. (LTs forest movement and ACMGs multifire.) I submit that if other units had similar advantages we would all but abandon LTs and ACMGs except perhaps as scouts and flanking units. For example, if heavy tanks and elephant tanks could fire their AA machine guns like the ACMG could or if medium tanks had 1/3 road movement instead of ½ road movement (justified by its larger engine, but still relatively small size).
Okay, I seem to have shown that these units are the most cost effective units available. Now what? Well, it seems to me (and the reason I’m against the LT/ACMG theorem) is that because of the perceived value of these units, we choose them in all situations whether they truly are the best unit for the job or not.
Endgame’s Game from the Ourgame series was a most interesting scenario. For those who have not played it I’ll give a brief description. The human (playing defender) starts out in the northern lagoon area in two large cities. Earl (the attacker) starts on beaches everywhere else. The victory points are located along the central ridge and in two nearby farms. A unique thing is that the game starts with three turns of night followed by a five shot off shore artillery barrage from Earl.
The first two times I played this game, I went with the LT/ACMG theory supported with light artillery and some heavier armored units. My plan was to fortify the ridge and pound Earl as he came up. That failed miserably. The first daylight turn, Earl fired his 5 of shore shots and no less than six mobile artillery. This neatly decapitated my tightly packed light tanks. The next turn the big guns came into play and proceeded to turn both forces into bloody gruel. However, Earl had a lot more units than I did. This happened twice.
I had to consider the game some more and I determined that his game was a prime example of the ancient principle of war "Concentration of firepower", also know as ‘get there the firstest with the mostest’. Basically, I had more than enough firepower to kill his units, but because of artillery barrages blocking line of site and causing units to not be able to move, I couldn’t bring enough units to fire on Earl’s at any one time to do much damage.
That conclusion (and some map studies) provided me with a solution. Instead of lots of fragile units, buy fewer tougher units with greater firepower. The reasons were:
I ended up buying about 10 heavy tanks, about 4 elephant tanks (with more coming later). I had medium tanks for the flanks, about 10 light artillery pieces, and bazookas and machine guns for the ridge. I bought a few armored cars (to head for the reinforcement location) and only a few light tanks and ACMGs. This time, I won quite handily. Earl’s artillery barrages rarely affected more than one unit at a time. While my artillery funneled Earl into waiting jaws of the swamp monsters. The elephant tanks sat on the little mountain peak ignoring artillery and eating medium tanks. The end result was a resounding win.
Of course, I didn’t know about the off shore artillery or Earl’s massive mobile arty strength on the first play, but I should have planned for such possibilities anyway. Had I done so, I would have purchased a more mixed army that (hopefully) would have led to success on the first game. Instead, I went with the obvious value units and got hurt for it.
Of course, there are situations where the LT/ACMG theorem is the best plan, but often we ignore better unit selections because of the value of the LT/ACMG. There seems to be a large population of people here that prefer scenarios with multiple reinforcements. The reason is that generals can correct earlier purchasing errors later in the game.
I won’t go into the realistic vs. game aspects of multiple reinforcements, but it seems (and this is only an observation) that multiple reinforcements support the LT/ACMG theorem because generals can correct their purchasing errors. I suspect most generals would do fine with only one reinforcement even if they did use the LT/ACMG theorem, but what about those times that the LT/ACMG theorem isn’t the best choice and you only have one reinforcement (admittedly a minority situation)?
Are our generals developing a blind spot when it comes to their initial purchase? I don’t know the answer to that. I do know that I don’t spend the amount of time on unit selection that I should (although after Jim’s Boston Campaign, I am spending more time on it AND buying more mixed armies).
Perhaps I am alone in this regard, but I hate to think of us not using all the units we have available. I hate to think of players and designers falling into a rut, even if it’s a creative rut. Perhaps I will design some rebel uniforms. I do know that I will allow the player a full choice of units in the scenarios I design. "Let ‘em cut their own throat."
I certainly would (almost) never suggest a whole army made of elephant tanks (heavy tanks maybe), but mixed armies allow more choices for the commander. That, I think, is what I hope to accomplish. Unfortunately, few of the scenarios available now lend themselves to mixed armies. It takes more tactical ability to fight a mixed army than a homogeneous one. Those generals that do fight with a mixed army (it seems to me) report success more often than not.
Combined arms is little discussed on these pages. General Bobb seems to work the most with it. Though I suspect every general has played a scenario with a mixed army, it seems General Bobb has taken the concept to heart and tries it for every scenario.
I was going to discuss modern army combined arms, but the whole concept doesn’t translate well to TPG2. The problem, of course, is one of scale. A modern artillery piece would have a TPG2 range of something like 300 hexes.
Combined arms is still a useful idea though. Mixing armor, infantry, artillery in the same game (especially in the same reinforcement) represents a combined arms column. Probably the best example of this recently was Ron Smith’s "The Last Convoy". Yes, it’s a set piece set-up, but the attacker is given at least one of every unit under 9 buy points (except mines). This combined arms army, while fragile and not entirely suited to its purpose, represents reality better than any other scenario I’ve seen.
The advantages of a combined arms army aren’t readily apparent, especially in most of our scenarios (because of the multiple reinforcement factor). However, there is one big advantage. Your army will be ready for whatever Earl (or the scenario designer) throws at you, whenever it happens, not at the next reinforcement.
There are a couple of disadvantages, though. A combined arms army will move somewhat slower than an all LT/ACMG force. The combined arms army takes more coordination and effort from the general to manage properly.
All in all, I think (hope) that the advantages of a combine arms army outweigh the disadvantages. I think that such efforts will make us better generals.
Combined arms is a neat idea, but why should we buy any artillery or heavy tanks when it’s not needed in the scenario or, worse, would be detrimental to the successful completion of the scenario?
Well... I can’t answer that. However, I will make my own plans on the subject clear. A great number of my scenarios (the branching campaign series) will be single reinforcement (or few only at the beginning) and I will attempt to make them more flexible from a general’s point of view.
I won’t go out of my way to create a scenario that eats LTs and ACMGs for breakfast, but I certainly won’t change it if that’s what comes out. I will try to make the scenarios open enough so that many different forces can win, though some will be harder for some unit selection than others. That’s the goal at least-.
See ya,
Captain Kev