Are "space marines" overpowered (in 2021)?

[pro.gamer.69]

Could be that with tank designer piercing becomes a lot cheaper than armor. (Easier to mount a gun, than to change the armor...)

Piercing already is cheaper than armor. What matters is that, at very least on tanks, if you invest into piercing more or less as much as your enemy invests into armor you can pierce them, and that the armor and piercing caps are more or less equal. The devs clearly somewhat agree with this - tanks have 1 more piercing than armor, and the piercing calculation favors the battalion with the highest piercing more than the armor calculation favors the battalion with the highest armor.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

I don't want to semi-necro the thread, but it's only been a few weeks and I don't want to make a new one either.

I played a vanilla 1v1 with a friend (relatively casual player but knows how to make templates, micro enough that he's won them before, build industry, etc.) as the USSR, and decided to go with the space marine strat. Since there was no USA/SAF and my friend took the treaty relatively late I didn't get HTD 3 until late 1940, however I had a huge stockpile of HT 2 and both conversion techs so I was able to have around 72 space marines (with just ~30 factories on them) in addition to 12 12/7/2 heavies and some 240 20w normal infantry.

They were insanely OP. He made 14/4s to try and push them but I was able to just bring in my heavies, and since it was in HMM it wasn't like he could force attack to win with them (like Japan sometimes can). He also made some light tanks with LSPG but they lost so much equipment that he ran out of it before he even reached the Stalin LIne. His actual tanks couldn't push through even 2 of them with 2-3 normal infantry while attacking over the river line (albeit without amtracs), and while they did have SPG in them and air support to carry them through the Vitebsk gap, they could only do so on the plains tile and I could easily counterattack. Even with perfect micro, when he clicked my tanks first, I was able to coutnerattack with the space marines and deorg him enough to actually have my tanks defend.

By the time he called it in late 1942 (we played to stalemate, since without a Dday there isn't a ton I can do either) my infantry, which were grouped into a separate theater, had killed 4000 tanks by themselves and only lost 800 HTDs. Naturally a 2 or 3:1 ratio is to be expected for a defensive war - but 5:1, without their losses from my actual tanks, was insane and would be insurmountable for the Axis in a real game.

Next time we play I'm going to have him do the same on Russia and see if I can break it with amrtac SPGs, but I'm doubtful.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

If you think it so invincible, why not play the Soviets on a server that allows 'space marines?' I'd suspect a competent Axis team would humiliate that defense, depending on what the house rules allowed.

Was scrolling through the older thread and figured you'd want to see the above post (if you haven't yet).

 

[Cavalry]

had killed 4000 tanks by themselves and only lost 800 HTDs. Naturally a 2 or 3:1 ratio is to be expected for a defensive war - but 5:1, without their losses from my actual tanks, was insane and would be insurmountable for the Axis in a real game.

Some tank heavy templates is actually quite expensive if you cann't encircle, about 100+ tank loss each battle. Use less tank, more HTD and artillery, tank division become much cheaper.

Recently I found that the Katyusha MLRS is superb and cheap in both IC and resource, can be built in 1939 and can get nearly max in 1943 tech (no special rocket tech require), that can be rushed in 1942. They can use bonus for line artillery too.

A tank division with MLRS can have better soft attack than a heavy tank division, at 1/3 the cost.
The MLRS is cheap enough to use in elite infantry template, replace line arty.

 

[machineTranslation]

Some tank heavy templates is actually quite expensive if you cann't encircle, about 100+ tank loss each battle. Use less tank, more HTD and artillery, tank division become much cheaper.

Recently I found that the Katyusha MLRS is superb and cheap in both IC and resource, can be built in 1939 and can get nearly max in 1943 tech (no special rocket tech require), that can be rushed in 1942. They can use bonus for line artillery too.

A tank division with MLRS can have better soft attack than a heavy tank division, at 1/3 the cost.
The MLRS is cheap enough to use in elite infantry template, replace line arty.

View attachment 720690

I tried MLRS in online games.1942 is too late. No country has a good bonus card.
MLRS is not cheap,
And research costs are high
The production line is also complex.
It is best to use LT and LT-SPG instead of them.
But the next version is likely to get some enhancement.

 

[Cavalry]

I tried MLRS in online games.1942 is too late.

It is good for entire game from 1939 and instant upgrade with techs and no need to change production line. 1943 tech is just one important tech, that kick them to new height, about 50% more soft attack than LSPG2.

It still worth it to get both LSpg2 and MLRS, if you are in early wars. Though I will just use MOT artillery for those early Soviet tank in Spain.