If it only affected piercing then no. In my tests (scroll up, corpsefool posted them) the AT divisions were piercing the heavies as well and still lost. I believe it was the hard attack which made the difference.
Are "space marines" overpowered (in 2021)?
- Thread starter Simon_9732495
- 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.
Which is why its meaningless. This describes any divisions with armor. Space Marines were done for the terrain modifier and cheap armor bonus. They are easily countered by any form of anti-tank, meta people just don't like investing into anything that's not tanks or planes. Using tank destroyers to defend is entirely the point of them and what happen in real life. You don't need the armor bonus to breakthrough, it just helps a lot. If anything tank destroyers are completely underused compared to real life.
- 7
- 3
You have no idea what you are talking about, look at the tests. Unlike AT infantry, space marines have enough hard attack and piercing to stop heavy tanks on plains tiles. When they are allowed there is no incentive for the Allies to build anything else, as by stacking enough of them they can stop heavy tanks in their tracks. Tank destroyer-only divisions are currently becoming "meta" for Russia for this reason.
The only people who did them for armor were people taking their SP usage and applying them to MP. But the fact that AT can pierce them is meaningless, as they are meant to defend against attacking units (tanks) regardless which will always pierce them without issue.
- 3
- 1
- 1
- 1
Only if your tanks are made of paper. I have checked and a 1941 10/10 heavy tank division with no upgrades cannot be pierced by a division above with no upgrades. It gets worse for the HTD if you use mechanized or use more tanks. If you use the heavy tank designer it gets even worse, unless you're America who gets a TD design company that boosts piercing. The cost off adding more and more to stop them is very impractical.
- 2
- 2
According to Wikipedia the Soviets did not have a HTD during WW2. They had a couple of MTDs which were only 5% of their total AFV production. So it seems in real life TDs and especially HTDs were not a big part of Soviet production
Soviet combat vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia
- 1
You're misreading. Anything that says "ISU" is a heavy tank destroyer based on the IS series of tanks. The SU-152 is also one, based on the KV series of tanks.According to Wikipedia the Soviets did not have a HTD during WW2. They had a couple of MTDs which were only 5% of their total AFV production. So it seems in real life TDs and especially HTDs were not a big part of Soviet production
Soviet combat vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
This is also a game and you are not bound to real life.
- 4
- 3
- 1
Yes, this is a quote from the same article:
"The ISU-122 and ISU-152 were self-propelled guns on casemate-fitted IS hulls. They were both used as heavy assault guns; and both were useful as Anti Tank weapons. The 122s D25 Gun could penetrate almost any German tank, and the 152s ML20 had long been used against enemy armour; although it had a low velocity, the massive shell could inflict considerable damage through concussive effects."
The ISU-122 (acronym of Istrebitelnaja - or Iosif Stalin-based - Samokhodnaya Ustanovka 122) was a Soviet assault gun used during World War II, mostly in the anti-tank role.
- 6
- 1
- 1
You can upgrade HTDs. That's what makes them so good. Anyway, I'm not doing more tests, you can see the countless ones which were already done. Piercing wasn't the deciding factor, in mine both AT and HTD pierced.
Also, I just checked and with 1941 techs, an unupgraded 8/2 inf/HTD with engineer has 79 piercing, the same as a 1941 10/10 HT/mech. Not sure why you'd compare 41 techs though, the majority of the war is fought with 43 techs. If you want to compare the "real" numbers Russia would have, make HTD 3 as the US with your OP designer from focus and give them gun 3.
"The ISU-152 self-propelled gun combined three battle roles: heavy assault gun, heavy tank destroyer and heavy self-propelled artillery." From its own article. I think the problem you're running into is that classifications are not so firm in real life as they are in hoi and hoi doesn't have assault guns either. The Russians also had a habit of just using artillery pieces in their vehicles. The IS-3 for example has just a plain artillery gun in its turret. The soviets used their normal 76mm artillery guns as anti tank weapons too. The 85mm gun used in so many soviet tanks, is just an anti-air gun they put in a turret. Why make 3 vehicles when you could make one that takes on all 3 roles. The point of all of this is that it is a heavy heavy tank destroyer as much as it is anything else.
- 1
- 1
I'd like to bring across a statement from another thread that I think adds clarity to the stalemate statement.
If you accept the argument that the 12/8 tanks cannot defeat the 8/2 (HAT), then they are correct. There is no point in arguing about the specific details of the space marine template designs or how equipment is researched ahead of time, cause those things are currently possible. I do wonder if PDX is looking at changing some of those very things in order to "shake up the meta". Just look at the effect the new Tank Designer is having with linking the guns to Artillery tech.
My argument is slightly different.
Let the player build that unbreakable space marine (or even ORG) wall. Then the challenge is on the opposing player to find a way to break that wall. Every tool isn't a hammer (tanks).
Especially for the AI, it would make them more challenging ... which is one of the things Expert AI does, no?
- 1
I saw your test, and I get similar results attacking pierceable 10/10 HT/mech into 8/4 (yeah, I said I couldn't test because I don't have the DLC that gives the equipment tab, but I totally forgot you can see equipment destroyed on the battle summary).
A gun-buffed 8/2 space marine has 10% more soft attack and 20% more hard attack than the equivalent 8/4 AT infantry, and, like your test showed, this can be enough in certain circumstances to change the winner of the fight, but this doesn't mean that the bonus is the main advantage. The main advantage of space marines is to guarante the heavy tank will be pierced, the bonus attack is sprinkles on top.
Even under this ideal scenario, in which the pierceable HT is pushing AT inf on plains and wins, equipment losses in IC are worse for the tank if they are pierced.
ger(tanks) = 57*0.69 + 2.5 + 8 + 22 * 30 + 27*10 = 979 IC
eng(inf) = 319*0.69 + 4*3.5 + 16*4 + 8 * 2.5 + 54*6 = 642 IC
But with unpierceable tanks, tank div losses are roughly 1/3 of that
This exact IC argument has been made in other instances to show that space marines are OP. I wouldn't argue that this proves that space marines are OP, this proves that any relatively cheap means to pierce heavy tanks with infantry makes heavy tanks UP (and outclassed by mediums because of cost).
To say that space marines are OP, you would also have to answer: if your enemy is going space marines, can you beat them with medium tanks? Medium tanks are bound to be pierced anyway, so they already lose this IC trade vs AT infantry. The IC trade vs space marines is worse obviously (as the OP points out, space marines are better in nearly all aspects to AT infantry), but IC trade being worse doesn't mean it will be backbreaking, unlike the heavy tank that goes from not-pierced to pierced.
I tested a bit the IC trade of 2 40 width mediums vs 4 20 width space marines and vs 4 20 width AT and indeed, attacking on the plains (simplest test possible) space marines killed 40%-100% more mediums than AT inf, both losing the fight. This sounds crazy good (and it is indeed a massive difference), but part of this is because the combat was already pretty close to begin with, and the closer the combat is, the bigger the impact of any single advantage. If this space marine advantage leads to certain unwinnable scenarios in a real game with tons of buffs and debuffs flying around, I'm not sure, but here we're reaching beyond what simple tests can answer.
TL/DR: Allowing space marines is a great overall buff against tanks and completely invalidates heavies. Whether it breaks medium tank builds is debatable.
- 4
- 3
Wouldn't space marine template countered by cheaper tank divisions?
It still doesn't have good attack rating due to huge amount of infantry, add more Mechs, HSPGs and just enough Harm for breakthrough?
Something like 9 MOT/MEC+ 4 HSPG+4HARM?
It still doesn't have good attack rating due to huge amount of infantry, add more Mechs, HSPGs and just enough Harm for breakthrough?
Something like 9 MOT/MEC+ 4 HSPG+4HARM?
- 2
I mean, yes, but in my test (which was against 12/8 heavies, a reasonable ratio) the AT was able to pierce as well.
No. They literally won the battle against the best tank in the game. The one you suggest (I assume you meant a 4/10/4, 4/9/4 has 38 combat width) does have 100 (15%-ish) more soft attack, but that's balanced out by having 250 (50%) less hard attack to throw against the space marines' 20% hardness, and around 400 (50%) less breakthrough.
There is no unbreakable ORG wall for heavies, though. Even 14/4s can break an infinite number of 2-widths, eventually. As for breaking the space marines, you could maybe do it with infantry on plains, or marines over a river onto plains, but they require air support which makes them horrible economically unsustainable. An infantry Germany could maybe break a France which did space marines, but it would have no chance against a Russia.
- 1
Simple counter to Space Marines - build SHT. Problem solved.
Of course you’ll never cross a river, Barb will take 8 years to complete, but there is a counter!!
Kidding here. But yeah, people need to realize that space marines are not something you want in MP, unless you want very bad games.
Of course you’ll never cross a river, Barb will take 8 years to complete, but there is a counter!!
Kidding here. But yeah, people need to realize that space marines are not something you want in MP, unless you want very bad games.
- 1
- 1
- 1
- 1
- 1
- 1
400 breakthrough is not going to get you anywhere. Additionally, what are 1944 tanks?Instead of HT, try mass attack of these for better IC efficiency:
- 1
The attack of OP templates is only about 200 per 20w. With mass of these I can constant attack on all the provinces nearby. It is hard for defender to regain Org. I also don't need infantry because these can double as defenders, release all the supply for attacking units. Nice spot on the 1944, those are T44 tank.
But the template was orginally designed vs AI. Better have an HTD on it to boost piercing and hard attack, just in case!
Last edited:
- 1