Are heavy tanks still OP and why

[markslawson]

Where were things at with Heavy tanks? I understood that adding them to, say, a marine division had big benefits beyond increase in soft/hard attack - although an additional art does just as well in soft attack and is a whole lot cheaper. Are h tanks still OP. Also, what are the thoughts on mechanised infantry? They have excellent defense and so on but are slower than motorised when speed seems to matter a lot, and are pricy. I was having fun with the Atlantis mod and wanted to role play (Having Atlantis in WWII is far fetched I hear you say? Maybe, but then so is Romania taking over Europe. Its a fun mod.)

 

[BeauNiddle]

Heavy armour used to be OP because if you weren't pierced you only took a quarter of the damage (IIRC) It's the armour value rather than the defence / soft attack values that is critical.

The AI is better about building anti tank units now but you'll still have a moderate advantage.

 

[Reman]

Adding a single heavy tank destroyer to infantry divisions adds a fair chunk of armor to the template, due to armor being calculated as 30% of highest + 70% of average. The armor bonus is very strong, so if you can get it through minimal investment then it's a pretty good deal.

However, this strat is trivially countered by AT, since piercing is calculated as 40% of highest + 60% of average. The AI rather aggressively uses AT in most of its frontline divisions past 1940, so "space marine" templates are pretty much useless in single player. It's a zombie strat that refuses to die despite being bad for several years now.

 

[Anaraxes]

As the others said, space marines are an old gimmick from release that mostly vanished in between some mechanics revisions and mostly people learning that there was a reason to build AT guns. It can still be worthwhile to put some armor into your infantry divisions, usually in the form of a tank destroyer. But that's still expensive. One current bit of "meta" is 10 INF infantry divisions, which can be effective on defense and have the virtue of being cheap. So countries with lots of manpower might try that and go for the IC attrition win.

Mech infantry is effective, but it's extremely expensive in terms of production cost. It's hard to have enough of it to really matter, even for a major, and it doesn't show up in numbers until later in the game, where it's likely that the outcome has already been decided. So it's one of those techs where you have to decide whether or not it's really worth the research time. (I find research slots and time the most scarce resource and the biggest tradeoff when it comes to planning a grand strategy.) But it's another way to get some armor into your infantry divisions. I've often built them in SP games just to do so, but it's one of those late-game splurges. Even when you do have mech infantry, you'll probably still get some use out of light infantry (I'm fond of marines) for areas that don't have a lot of infrastructure to supply all those tanks and halftracks.

 

[squid_hills]

However, this strat is trivially countered by AT, since piercing is calculated as 40% of highest + 60% of average. The AI rather aggressively uses AT in most of its frontline divisions past 1940, so "space marine" templates are pretty much useless in single player. It's a zombie strat that refuses to die despite being bad for several years now.

I find that adding heavy tanks to infantry can still be viable in a few, limited, scenarios. The major nations all start spamming AT support fairly early on, so you are correct in that it isn't useful in most cases. But I rarely (if ever) see China use AT, so much to the point that light tanks are effective against them well into the 1940s (why is Japan fighting China in the 1940s? Because they spent the late 30s knocking the US out of the game first). Japan can gain a real benefit from using heavy tanks in Infantry divisions against China. India can benefit from the tactic when holding the line against Japan. Japan doesn't prioritize AT because their first opponent is China, and China doesn't field tanks in any real quantity. So by the time Japan starts putting AT support in their divisions, their research has likely lagged behind where it should be. They might be putting AT support in their divisions, but it is likely to be 1936 AT while an India player could be fielding 1940 heavy tanks. Use army XP to boost your tank's armor rating and you can widen the gap between Japanese AT piercing and Indian armor. Of course, those same Indian Inf + Heavy tank divisions would be useless against Germany (or even the USSR if you end up fighting them for some reason).

Also, if you are playing as a minor nation, and focusing on smacking down other minor nations, it would still be effective (as most minors struggle to build enough MIC to fill out support companies) if not for the fact that it is a rare minor indeed that A) gets a large enough MIC base to afford putting tanks in infantry divisions B) has the steel and chromium resources to afford it, and C) isn't involved in a war against a major nation which would just invalidate the tactic through AT support.

But yes, the tactic is mostly useless in the current build of the game. The AI does a better job of using AT and most human players know to include AT in multiplayer, so it is no longer the instant-win button it used to be.

TL;DR Reman, you are right. The tactic is garbage in 92% of scenarios. But for the remaining 8%, it can still work.

 

[Bergermeister]

It is always beneficial if you can afford it. Hardness is undervalued. If you reduce the amount of soft attack an infantry unit takes it helps. Not being pierced or piercing another division is just icing.

 

[Reman]

I find that adding heavy tanks to infantry can still be viable in a few, limited, scenarios. The major nations all start spamming AT support fairly early on, so you are correct in that it isn't useful in most cases. But I rarely (if ever) see China use AT, so much to the point that light tanks are effective against them well into the 1940s (why is Japan fighting China in the 1940s? Because they spent the late 30s knocking the US out of the game first). Japan can gain a real benefit from using heavy tanks in Infantry divisions against China. India can benefit from the tactic when holding the line against Japan. Japan doesn't prioritize AT because their first opponent is China, and China doesn't field tanks in any real quantity. So by the time Japan starts putting AT support in their divisions, their research has likely lagged behind where it should be. They might be putting AT support in their divisions, but it is likely to be 1936 AT while an India player could be fielding 1940 heavy tanks. Use army XP to boost your tank's armor rating and you can widen the gap between Japanese AT piercing and Indian armor. Of course, those same Indian Inf + Heavy tank divisions would be useless against Germany (or even the USSR if you end up fighting them for some reason).

Also, if you are playing as a minor nation, and focusing on smacking down other minor nations, it would still be effective (as most minors struggle to build enough MIC to fill out support companies) if not for the fact that it is a rare minor indeed that A) gets a large enough MIC base to afford putting tanks in infantry divisions B) has the steel and chromium resources to afford it, and C) isn't involved in a war against a major nation which would just invalidate the tactic through AT support.

But yes, the tactic is mostly useless in the current build of the game. The AI does a better job of using AT and most human players know to include AT in multiplayer, so it is no longer the instant-win button it used to be.

TL;DR Reman, you are right. The tactic is garbage in 92% of scenarios. But for the remaining 8%, it can still work.

Adding the newly introduced armored recon companies can get infantry divisions over 5 armor, which will exceed the piercing value of AI divisions until most of them start aggressively pursuing AT in 1940/41. With how cheap these companies are (216 IC per company), this can actually be very helpful for difficult early game wars.

The problem with the old "single battalion of heavy tank destroyers" is that 25-45 armor is a sour spot between affordability and utility given the AI's behavior of "all or nothing" when it comes to piercing. If 25 armor will get the bonus, it's very likely that 5.5 armor would have still gotten the bonus, but for much less investment. On the other hand, if 5.5 armor doesn't get the bonus, it's unlikely that 45 armor would get the bonus either. AI divisions tend to have 50+ piercing in 1942-3, and 70+ piercing in the late game. Single battalions of heavy tanks aren't going to work against that.

 

[squid_hills]

Adding the newly introduced armored recon companies can get infantry divisions over 5 armor, which will exceed the piercing value of AI divisions until most of them start aggressively pursuing AT in 1940/41. With how cheap these companies are (216 IC per company), this can actually be very helpful for difficult early game wars.

Wait, they have armored recon now? That's what I get for still playing 1.8x and no LaR. That's a lot cheaper than trying to mass produce heavy tank destroyers!

 

[Voigt]

Real Spacemarines which definiton only got muddled later are still quite useful.

Before the introduction of Special Forces you could just have your whole Army be Marines or Mountaineers or mix of them. Making Terrain modifiers much less of an issue. If you then added an Heavy Tank to your Marines they make Armoured Space Marines.

Now you can't have your whole Army be Marines anymore, but adding 1 HT to a Marine Templates doesn't decrease their Invasion Bonus much, but still gives them quite a bit of armour. Since you are limited for Marines either way, you can even use regular Heavy Tanks for more Soft Attack and Breaktrough, for 12 divisions or so the cost ain't that high.
Yeah the ai uses AT and even in MP AT or atleast AA2 isn't that uncommon anymore, but less so on port garrisions, and more on the frontlines. So having armour on your Marines can help quite alot.
Armored Recon helps aswell, but Heavy Tanks won't be pierced by AA1 and they bring more Soft Attack and Hardness.

 

[Reman]

Real Spacemarines which definiton only got muddled later are still quite useful.

Before the introduction of Special Forces you could just have your whole Army be Marines or Mountaineers or mix of them. Making Terrain modifiers much less of an issue. If you then added an Heavy Tank to your Marines they make Armoured Space Marines.

Now you can't have your whole Army be Marines anymore, but adding 1 HT to a Marine Templates doesn't decrease their Invasion Bonus much, but still gives them quite a bit of armour. Since you are limited for Marines either way, you can even use regular Heavy Tanks for more Soft Attack and Breaktrough, for 12 divisions or so the cost ain't that high.
Yeah the ai uses AT and even in MP AT or atleast AA2 isn't that uncommon anymore, but less so on port garrisions, and more on the frontlines. So having armour on your Marines can help quite alot.
Armored Recon helps aswell, but Heavy Tanks won't be pierced by AA1 and they bring more Soft Attack and Hardness.

It's still quite easy to make your entire battle force of infantry into marines if desired. All you need to do is spam out a bunch of single battalion divisions (they don't need to be trained or have full equipment), then switch them to 25 battalion divisions, then switch your main army to marines/mountaineers, then delete the 25 battalion divisions.

However, doing this typically isn't worthwhile unless you're getting blocked by a particularly nasty river. Marines have about half the HP:IC ratio of standard infantry, so they'll require twice as many factories to replace any losses. This can be worthwhile for particularly obnoxious river crossings, but they should never be used as a wholesale replacement for infantry unless you're at a point where IC (and manpower) is no longer a factor.

 

[Secret Master]

For what it's worth, I never considered heavy armor or space marines overpowered. I did consider the AI incapable of dealing with it, which is a slightly different problem.

I sometimes use HTDs in infantry divisions as the Soviets in MP, but not for Space Marine purposes. I create dedicated panzer-obliterating divisions (just a few) with one HTD per 10 width plus foot infantry and some support companies. They are specifically designed to counter enemy armor formations, not just with piercing, but with HA to bypass some of that panzer hardness. They also have some armor of their own (it's HTDs after all) to punish panzer divisions that go light on piercing because they think they are just trolling foot infantry and AT guns.

They get deployed against panzer spearheads, and retire behind the line when the panzers go away. They are not suited to extended combat against enemy infantry (not enough soft attack to justify the fuel and lost TDs).

I've employed this approach a number of times successfully. It's fairly IC efficient. It does not preclude using AT guns in regular divisions. It's specifically meant to counter armored thrusts where stacks of panzer divisions are trying to breakthrough, not immunize individual divisions against enemy armor.

The most fun part is when the panzers start losing strength, and then they can't pierce the HTDs anymore. Then the German player has to decide whether to continue the offensive or take a break and replace losses... which gives the Soviet troops time to reORG.

 

[MR2]

I create dedicated panzer-obliterating divisions (just a few) with one HTD per 10 width plus foot infantry and some support companies.

Ten INF BDE + 1 HTD w support Co's Correct?

 

[Bki]

Ten INF BDE + 1 HTD w support Co's Correct?

I read it as 4 Inf + 1 HTD, repeated until you get the desired width.

 

[Secret Master]

I read it as 4 Inf + 1 HTD, repeated until you get the desired width.

That is correct.

In the MP mod we use, you can't get to 40 width. But there's no reason you can't use the same ratio in vanilla HOI4 and go all the way to 40.

 

[MR2]

So one 8/2 and three 10/0 makes a great stack of 20W to roadblock any ARM thrust.

 

[mursolini]

However, this strat is trivially countered by AT, since piercing is calculated as 40% of highest + 60% of average. The AI rather aggressively uses AT in most of its frontline divisions past 1940, so "space marine" templates are pretty much useless in single player. It's a zombie strat that refuses to die despite being bad for several years now.

No. If you build "Space Marines" right, it's not enough to have just 1940 support AT, you will need either line AT, or a few other sources of piercing. It's a corner case of 1941 HTD having a bit too much armor, and is very easy to research, since you only need 2 bonuses, far easier than getting 1940 AT in most infantry divisions.

It loses usefulness later on, as 1943 HTD doesn't provide enough armor to overcome 1943 suppport AT piercing.

 

[markslawson]

Thanks for all the replies.. my new game awaits..

 

[Secret Master]

So one 8/2 and three 10/0 makes a great stack of 20W to roadblock any ARM thrust.

If the 8/2 is 8 INF/ 2 HTDs, then yes. Although, I will say that in MP my front line 10/0 have support companies and are not pure INF. And I also sometimes mix in some divisions with line ART as well. I know line ART isn't beloved by most members of the community for defense, but I do like the extra soft attack in some engagements.

(There's a whole other discussion to have about training divisions, categories of divisions, and general army organization, but I'm guessing it's beyond what you want to go into for this thread.)