Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

0311's Achievements


Instigator (4/8)



  1. They look great. Really got a nice military look to them.
  2. Great CAV's hope to see more.
  3. Thanks for the comments. Yeah, had originally planned on fielding a Rach force so figured I'd try a little freehand. Got the idea from the Dictator in JR1.
  4. Had posted some of these along time ago but got my decaling and final details done so figured I'd post them again in there finished combat ready state. 3 Dictators
  5. First of my light CAV's. Kahn and Raptor. Flash kind of drowns them out a little but best my poor photo skills can do.
  6. Amazing! Anxious to see more.
  7. Terran for me. Gotta go with the home team. Cav's are a mix of KODA and Terran manufacture. Eventually will have enough Terran or Rach to field a pure force of either if I want but will most likely play a mixed bag Terran force.
  8. Nice! I've been running some small skirmishes trying to become more familiar with CAV 2 but have been running alot off of memory since my printer crapped out and my girlfriend started playing online poker. So to be quite honest really hadn't focused too heavily on any engineering. I do see quite a few possibilities here. Plan on playing a pretty good size engagement Saturday I'm gonna run quite a bit of mech inf with some engineers as part of a fairly well balanced force so very interested to see how they fare.
  9. I think you've got it dead right Spartan but I do have one reason they were so successful. Terrain. They were advancing against lightly dug in troops(no serious engineering works to impede their movement) over extremely open ideal tank or armor country. Again I agree that under these circunstances this is exactly how it should have played out and is probabely the game set up we see most of the time with an occassional small wood maybe a scattered building here etc.... but essentially fairly open terrain. This puts infantry in a bad way. Firstly they will be expected to advance over open ground or defend it with little in the way of protection against very heavy armor this is suicide but due to terrain set up and the nature of most games this is where we find them and being there to be realistic they should be run down. I guess my argument and hope would be when employed properly that they gain some merit. Say that for the sake of argument this battle had been fought in Korea should these behemoths just be allowed to labor down a single track road with enemy infantry commanding the high ground. This again is where skirmish games tend to lose some realism say they do make it if their supporting INF does not clear out these strong points along their route of advance their not going to last long the INF will outlast the very supply hungry armor. Their supply will not make it through this INF. So again the INF strengths are negated by the very short term goals of the game. So really in a skirmish game of this nature you have armor playing to all its strengths and the INF being forced to play with none of their inherent advantages counting for much. My whole argument I guess is that I would like to see INF deployed in tactically sound positions somewhat more viable. Say for instance that armor may not overrun INF in certain types of environments but may do so in others. Heavy woods, urban terrain, extensive fortifications would certaily slow armor to the point that having to stop on initial contact would be fairly representative of the slowing of their advance that these obstacles would accomplish. I haave np with INF getting run down or over when
  10. I think it comes down to a question of CAV being more of a tactical simulation or creating mega units untouchable just for the sake of doing so because CAV's are kool (which they indeed are) and no way no how could any lowly infantry even scratch them. Reality would paint a different picture if the armor of a CAV was so advanced why would this same technology not be incorporated into other armored vehicles as well. The weight of a Tank is not that much less than a CAV, Cost maybe could be an issue. Why would I be shooting a TOW or Javelin at a CAV it'd be like shooting a 2.75 bazooka at an Abrams again how do CAV's advance while anti-armor units stagnate to nothing. I guess my argument is should a CAV be that much more effective than everything else in the game or take its place as the ever powerful but still somewhat vulnerable king of the battlefield. I would rate CAV surviveabliity as they've done with the heavy's being far harder to bring down than a recon CAV. If a recon CAV who's job really isn't even to engage an enemy is so damn hard that he's all but invulnerable to INF and their weapons what's the point of Heavy's . Just to take out the other CAV's I suppose because who in their right mind would take any infantry at all when they could be swarmed even by light CAV's under about any circumstance. I understand your argument and agree that CAV's should be the dominant factor on the battlefield but I would also like CAV 2 to be a game of somewhat sound tactical doctrine. Say you had a well equipped INF force deployed in an urban area your attack force had better include some supporting INF or your armor or CAV's should pay. I think INF should be effective in certain circumstances and very vulnerable in others. That would be the realistic approach Tanks are the kings of the modern battlefield but I stand by my claim that armor used recklessly against good INF in favorable terrain will have a very bad day. History proves this out with countless examples. I think the way there going is the direction to head by making armor pay some kind of penalty for what can be a somewhat risky endevour. Skirmish games by nature have a way of putting INF in situations they'd really not like to be caught under as much in real life as they are usually moved forward in very close proximity to heavy enemy armored formations that they were not meant to meet head on in an advance to contact. This can be alleviatted by scenarios putting INF in more favorable conditions where their commander would be far more likely to employ them etc... INF do have their place and it may be at the bottom of the food chain but INF can be effective in certain environments and tactical situations and I think the rules need to reflect this.
  11. I've been following this thread and decided to throw my 2 cents in. The first thing i think we have to keep in mind is that for infantry to have any viability they must be considered to be somewhat equal in the armor- anti-armor race. Meaning that they are equipped with anti-tank weapons capable of damaging CAV's under favorable conditions. Flank shots, Rear arc etc... I think its too easy to over estimate the survivability of tanks or armor after the two gulf wars where the tanks were for the most part fighting in an ideal environment for armor against inferior troops and equipment. This is not a slam against the men and women who served but a compliment. Decent infantry with adequate anti-armor weapons deployed in good defensive positions are capable of inflicting grevious losses on unsupported armor. The Israeli's after initial set backs during Yom Kippur began comitting large armor forces unsupported and suffered massive tank losses to dug in infantry armed with RPG's and AT-3 Saggers in a desert environment. The Russians lost upwards of 80 Tanks in a single day to INF in a built up environment in Chechnya. I think when looking at any INF vs. Armor engagement we have to look at a few critical points. 1.Terrain- This is huge! While tanks may rule in the open desert their effectiveness decreases radically as possible engagement ranges decrease or their ability to manuever is constrained. A tank is going to be most effective in say Iraq or the Russian Steppe when it can play to all its strengths, less so in Europe,even less in say Korea, very limitted in say Vietnam etc... A tanks ability to successfully overrun an actual position is also very terrain dependant they may be able to run through an INF units control zone but to overrun their actual position would require that the INF be positioned in an ideal position for overrunning. 2.Quality of Armor vs. Anti-armor- An M1A2 Abrams may fair pretty well against an RPG but how would it hold up against a Javelin. For CAV purposes i think we have to assume that the Armored forces are not way more advanced than the Anti-armor. 3.Weight of Attack- amount of armor committed opposed to Def. strength. 4. Supporting Fires- both attacking and defending. 5. Weather- Can severely curtail armored units. Heavy rains etc... can no longer attack on a broad front confined to roads. 6. Engineering Fieldworks- How long has the INF unit had to fortify its position. Tank traps,Barricades, mines,etc... I'm not questioning the tanks lethality at all I'm just saying I think there are way too many variables to consider before any battle. Tanks used recklessly against well armed desciplined INF in good positions might have more trouble than they bargained for. Then again I spent a little time as a grunt in the USMC so I might be a little biased.
  12. Great looking squadron. WOW! I've been out of the loop for awhile but seeing units like these has totally motivated me to get back to work. Make sure you get those posted in the CAV gallery over at Reaper games.
  • Create New...