3000 soft attack,Germany surrendered 20 days after barbarossa began

[charlottep51]

Ah so the tank B costs Tungsten, and you avoid that by converting the tank A, to tank B. ?

example

1. A cost 10 IC

2. B cost 15 IC and 2 Tungsten

3. A convert to B , cost 5 IC +2 Tungsten
(Approximate, probably 5.5 or 5.4, which means a little bit more)

But conversion has productivity buff
and
You can delay the release of this “tungsten production”
and
solve the "10 ic part" first

 

[blahmaster6k]

Ah so the tank B costs Tungsten, and you avoid that by converting the tank A, to tank B. ?

I must not be understanding, because converting A to B still uses tungsten for me on the beta patch.

Or is it the production costs that's a benefit here? God I'm thick.

In simple terms, you're paying tungsten per factory per day for the gun. Converting lets you pay tungsten over fewer days per tank, which effectively means less tungsten per tank.

 

[Crispin]

Aha, thank you good sirs for putting up with my questions, now I get it!

 

[tract]

My guess is that there is no space to write the 年 and 日 characters in the date window, and then everything went downhill from there.

I didn't peek into the localisation files but I guess Paradox only made it possible to localise the month -- so Aug becomes 8月 but nothing else in the date format may change.

 

[FindFloppies]

Am I the only one irritated by the 31 7月, 1941 date format?

That's 'normal' for much of the world. Don't be provincial!

 

[Secret Master]

Also the fact that you can put a howitzer/HV cannon on an AFV and call it a "tank" OR an SPG/TD, so you always pick"tank" because you get the same stats for less combat width.

Someone already mentioned that they think the opposite is better: use SPART or TDs, not regular tanks, due to how costs and number of vehicles per battalion works.

Are you saying you prefer the lower width?

 

[blahmaster6k]

Someone already mentioned that they think the opposite is better: use SPART or TDs, not regular tanks, due to how costs and number of vehicles per battalion works.

Are you saying you prefer the lower width?

It depends on what you're looking for. If you're wanting to have the maximum attack in a single combat (can be important in MP for trying to break the river line in the USSR), you want to have as much attack per width as possible. If you don't care about that, then TDs would indeed be better because they are cheaper to fill a battalion with. Especially if you're going for something like a 9-1 Mech/TD that was a fairly common defensive division before NSB.

However, if you want to make say a 12-9 Tank/Mech or an 11/10 entirely with TDs you would end up being at 52 or 50 width instead of 42 which you would have with regular tanks. Consider that the ideal combat width is 42 for tanks in the new patch. This can lead to a lot of stats wasted due to exceeding combat width, or divisions not being able to reinforce because they are too large.

 

[Medu Salem]

Someone already mentioned that they think the opposite is better: use SPART or TDs, not regular tanks, due to how costs and number of vehicles per battalion works.

Are you saying you prefer the lower width?

I am with blahmaster6k on this one, I pretty much wrote something similar on another thread concerning tanks already.

True, SPART/TDs in their designated Battalions are cheaper to produce due to less equipment required, but they are then also weaker in combat for their width.

If for whatever reason you need to throw out tons of punch in one single division and don't mind the costs, then regular tank divisions still have their place.

Or better said it isn't even that much of a cost question but instead of what you want to achieve. For the same cost you can have multiple tank divisions that are weaker or fewer that are way stronger... and what you pick is basically depending on who or what you are up against.

But that said, otherwise I would agree, if there is no real reason to throw this much punch into one single division then you will likely be better off saving the IC for more Tank divisions or even something else entirely (like Planes).



Personally I think it would still be in the best interest of the game and everyone if the devs would homogenize the tank battalion widths and equipment amounts into 2 width & same equipment amount for a tank size no matter if it is regular tank, SPAA, SPART, TD or whatever role you come up with in the tank designer.

Would remove the balancing mess and you could directly compare performance and adjust values in the tank modules instead of having to buff/nerf equipment numbers or adjusting battalion widths which will never really work out as well because especially the combat width is not granular enough to allow for that and only results in very odd division templates.

But that said, I think it is obvious to everyone and almost everyone will agree that there are several balancing changes still necessary, and probably various ways to go about them (some more simpler/complicated than others) and I will live with whatever changes will happen.

 

[Reman]

It should also be noted in the tanks vs SPG/TD dichotomy that tanks are the only ones that can take advantage of the conversion exploit. SPGs and TDs don't get that, so the resource/IC usage probably balances out quite a bit.

 

[el nora]

It should also be noted in the tanks vs SPG/TD dichotomy that tanks are the only ones that can take advantage of the conversion exploit. SPGs and TDs don't get that, so the resource/IC usage probably balances out quite a bit.

ehhh, kinda? you do get slightly more spg directly by ic by exploiting. but the exploit really shines in resource costs. fewer civs spent importing resources is more mils is more ic produced.

 

[Kazakk]

They really should do something to kill the huge division meta.

 

[Medu Salem]

It should also be noted in the tanks vs SPG/TD dichotomy that tanks are the only ones that can take advantage of the conversion exploit. SPGs and TDs don't get that, so the resource/IC usage probably balances out quite a bit.

What el nora wrote, you still massively save on resources that can be spent elsewhere (or sparing you trades)...

... and the "exploit" will eventually be... removed/nerfed or otherwise dealt with once they figure out a way to do it.

So we can probably only have fun with it for now but the Sword of Damocles is hovering over it for sure.

 

[blahmaster6k]

What el nora wrote, you still massively save on resources that can be spent elsewhere (or sparing you trades)...

... and the "exploit" will eventually be... removed/nerfed or otherwise dealt with once they figure out a way to do it.

So we can probably only have fun with it for now but the Sword of Damocles is hovering over it for sure.

The sword of damocles has been hanging over tech blueprint stealing for the last two or three years since 1.9, and it's still working just as well as it always has.

 

[Reman]

ehhh, kinda? you do get slightly more spg directly by ic by exploiting. but the exploit really shines in resource costs. fewer civs spent importing resources is more mils is more ic produced.

View attachment 780435

Oh, so you just have to mark the old one as obsolete for that conversion button to be clickable. Good to know.

I can go back to making nothing but SPGs and TDs now. Very cool.

 

[Reman]

What el nora wrote, you still massively save on resources that can be spent elsewhere (or sparing you trades)...

... and the "exploit" will eventually be... removed/nerfed or otherwise dealt with once they figure out a way to do it.

So we can probably only have fun with it for now but the Sword of Damocles is hovering over it for sure.

Yeah, I agree with Blahmaster here. The exploit could be fixed relatively quickly... or it could be around for years. Paradox has always been extremely inconsistent with fixing exploits.

 

[Medu Salem]

The sword of damocles has been hanging over tech blueprint stealing for the last two or three years since 1.9, and it's still working just as well as it always has.

While odd that tech blueprint stealing gives bonus for stuff that makes no sense... Personally I never saw it as that game breaking. The mission still takes time to complete, has a failure chance etc and you need to build up intel first, then infiltrate the deparment, etc. Certain countries with tons of spies to spare may benefit, but those in question are usually the ones that are in a bad military position anyway who might end up getting wrecked immediately in 1939/1940 already.

But in comparison someone making 24 tank divisions by 1939 or whatever and steamrolling over everyone definitely is something I highly doubt will go by without a change.

[edit] By the way, I should probably mention that I actually like the exploit, haha. Because I hate how much the tanks cost, so I will miss it should they really fix it.

 

[Secret Master]

It depends on what you're looking for.

True, SPART/TDs in their designated Battalions are cheaper to produce due to less equipment required, but they are then also weaker in combat for their width.

Then I don't feel like a complete idiot. I've been using tanks since release because I felt like it was better concentration of force, cost be damned (since I'm not using the exploit). And 8 kph heavy tanks aren't cheap.

 

[Medu Salem]

Then I don't feel like a complete idiot. I've been using tanks since release because I felt like it was better concentration of force, cost be damned (since I'm not using the exploit). And 8 kph heavy tanks aren't cheap.

Nah you don't need to feel bad if it does what you need. In the end its a game.

I am currently still experimenting with various different combinations of Medium regular tank + TD + mot templates.

And that even before also discovering the conversion exploit on Friday or whenever... and despite knowing that using SPART battalions instead would save me some more of the costs and even though I know that Heavy Tanks would be even cheaper.

But currently with my tests I am at the point where I would only save 10%-15% of the total division costs if I would switch to SPART instead of Regular Tanks so I am "meh" about the 300 IC more and rather take the higher punch + additional division Organization.

In the end all I need is to beat the AI and that's what matters, and that's what the template/design is going to be good enough because when I look at the designs the AI craps out, then I will be fine.

[edit]

*And Medu was not fine and Medu's tanks filled graves in the no man's land between the motherland and the fatherland.*

Hopefully not, but I really cheaped out in my latest try.

 

[MinhowMinhow]

The sword of damocles has been hanging over tech blueprint stealing for the last two or three years since 1.9, and it's still working just as well as it always has.

Is that exploit that allows to have both concentrated and dispersed industries, using espionage still working?

 

[blahmaster6k]

Is that exploit that allows to have both concentrated and dispersed industries, using espionage still working?

No. I'm talking about tech stealing from minors to get repeated 300% bonuses + 1-2 year ahead of time penalty reductions for industry.