OK.
I always use CAS with Battlefield Support because of the bonuses you get.- 1
Is there any use to SPGs in NSB?
- Thread starter Eisscrat
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I always use CAS with Battlefield Support because of the bonuses you get.
OK.
If I really cared, I would have swapped out of BS an ran SD instead anyway alongside CAS.
But I'm not the biggest fan of BS in most cases.
In theory it is that but you can put bigger artillery gun on smaller chassis. And SPG is huge about cheap when they don't rush for top armor, tank should take care about top armor in a division. This medium SPG with heavy howitzer, look at the soft attack and cost.
- 1
Sure, but that only goes for light SPG from 39 onwards and the heavy howitzer is 43 tech. You also lose out on a lot of breakthrough having to use the fixed superstructure.
.png){kind=avatar}
Oh yes, I used to the old DLC when armor level is IC free. Now armor cost IC. Still the small division is a trend in NSB and that favour 1 tank that can be used as armor, soft attack and piercing. Now we can try tank division with 1 TD to double as armor source and piercing, many cheap SPG and probably 1 tank for the breakthrough? Breakthrough is less important when we have number advantage (width advantage)
Last edited:
Wait, if a tank division has only 1 TD and 1 tank, then it is the same cost wherever to put extra armor, because TD and SPG now have 50 vehicle like tank, only SPAA have 36. Better go with 1 tank and SPG, don't use TD at all.
Depending on the weapons, wouldnt the tank as TD and the spg as the tank make more sense?
I believe, original statement was from the perspective of building large divisions with a lot of tanks (along the lines of 15/5). For smaller divisions it would be the opposite: you invest in "Armor" on tank anyway for breakthrough (main reason to bring tank); doing the same on other vehicles (for the purposes on just bringing in armour, since breakthrough is penalized) seems counterproductive.
Battlefield Support. @Secret Master prefers Strategic Destruction which I thought is mostly for a large strategic bombing force, which Germany doesn't have.
Last edited:
- 1
Probably for fighters, which are typically the core of your airforce.
- 1
- 1
It's an old habit from MP games.
In essence, OI or SD are better for your fighters. And if you can't win the war against enemy fighters, there's no point in having better CAS or TACs. So, even though BS will amplify the impact of your ground attack, what you really want is to beat the enemy air force overall.
Now, against the AI, if you know you can beat their air forces hands down anyway, it's not as big of a deal. But old habits die hard, even if Germany already has step 1 on the BS track.
- 1
- 1
IIMO BS is better for Germnay in SP, even with EAI. It can be tough to get green air, but I can do it. SD contains too many buffs for stategic bombers that Germany doesn't have.
But it has the Air Superiority Efficiency, Air Superiority, and Agility modifiers that impact all those Fw-190s you'll be making.
There was a time when OI was better at fighters, but don't let the name fool you. You can ignore the bombing buffs in the SD tree and still come out ahead.
(I've never figured out if Bomber Defense applies to TACs when they don't fly strategic bombing missions. If so, then SD has applicability to bombing as well.
- 1
The TD can use medium cannon of tank is big buff for them, allow to reduce cost when use light chassis-fix turret and not compromise on soft attack/hard attack. I think there is not real life TD come with that?
You can use them even if you don't win the air war absolutely. The game was designed so both sides can use CAS in many case, except when total plane of one side double the other.
I used to use BS exclusive but then someone tell that CAS don't have ground attack boost from air support efficiency, it only help air battles. Though BS has bonus for land units under CAS and BS cannot go wrong.
- 1
Wiki say it used 7.5 pak. Any pak gun is AT gun, not all purpose tank gun. With the right shell it can do anti infantry, but still not tank gun?