I am still learning and testing about the armour designer myself, and checked some optimal build from the net. But I would like to try some different interesting build as well. Does anyone has anything interesting to share with please?
Can anyone share some intersting armour design?
- Thread starter him_15
- 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.
.png){kind=avatar}
Example:
Interwar medium chassis
Machine-gun
3-man medium turret
Basic radio
2 x extra ammo
Diesel engine
Perfect! ... if you're Germany or USSR preparing imperial guard for an early Barbarossa.
So who are you playing as and what role do you intend for the tanks?
Interwar medium chassis
Machine-gun
3-man medium turret
Basic radio
2 x extra ammo
Diesel engine
Perfect! ... if you're Germany or USSR preparing imperial guard for an early Barbarossa.
So who are you playing as and what role do you intend for the tanks?
- 1
This baby can keep up with cavalry and go unpierced against AA.
it also looks like junk because that's the model the game thinks our design will look like, so we take it. even better!
it also looks like junk because that's the model the game thinks our design will look like, so we take it. even better!
- 2
- 1
The latest thing seems to be a sort of luggage rack about a metre or so above the turret . . .
- 3
- 1
I'm new to the game as well. There's mod I've been using, you can find it on the steam work shop, german tank blue prints.
Hope this helps
Hope this helps
Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough, but I don't find any of the tank designs particularly 'interesting'. There is some ridiculous meme stuff like super heavy cannons or squeeze bore rockets/flames, but that is more absurd that interesting, in my opinion. Part of this has to do with the vehicles being part of a battalion which is part of a formation, and that formation fights as a monolithic unit. Stats that are missing on the vehicle could generally be compensated for with the rest of the formation. Not enough attacks/armour/breakthrough on the vehicle itself? You could tweak the design to have more of any of that, or you could just throw another battalion of it into the formation.
- 1
I guess there is some evaluation to optimize how many vehicles are needed per division to do the job vs the cost of each individually.
71cloak has been showing off some cheap designs on youtube to do various tasks.
71cloak has been showing off some cheap designs on youtube to do various tasks.
Hmm, now that someone mentioned the super heavy cannon, there _is_ that route...
Suppose you're more of a "how" than a "can" man (m/f). This means two things: Your final gun won't fit on a medium chassis, and you're using a tank destroyer of some kind.
Using both tanks and TDs, you won't be using too many TDs, so you'll get plenty of breakthrough from your tanks. How little your TD provides doesn't matter much, so you can go fixed super-structure if it's convenient. This means med. TDs with heavy cannons is an option, as are heavy/moderns with SH cannon.
As for cannons for the TD, high-velocities require AT tech and heavies require AA or AT. And mediums? They don't have enough piercing unless you mass them. But ...
Since the heavy how. doesn't fit on a medium, you'll want to get moderns or heavies eventually. One is 1945, the other 1943. And if you go the heavy route, you can take a short detour to super-heavy if you want to. This gets you the super-heavy cannon for a single extra tech instead of doing all of the AA/AT branch.
So: We first work towards imp.med. chassis with imp.med. howitzer, with a side-order of med. TDs with basic heavy cannons (good pierce and decent attacks), then work towards adv.hv. chassis with hv. howitzer, with a side-order of hv. TDs with SH cannon.
Yes, we're missing out on some TD boosts from AT tech, but it's still *very* powerfull.
And yes, heavies are expensive, but by the time we're building them, our armies are limited by supply, fuel and manpower, not just ICs, so the difference isn't big. On the other hand, the difference between getting a 1945 tech and two 1943 techs is quite big, so we can begin building earlier. On the third hand, we _are_ missing out on 30% reliability. Fourth, both adv.hv. and modern have 75 basic armour, so we *are* well-armoured, even missing those 30% reliability.
Suppose you're more of a "how" than a "can" man (m/f). This means two things: Your final gun won't fit on a medium chassis, and you're using a tank destroyer of some kind.
Using both tanks and TDs, you won't be using too many TDs, so you'll get plenty of breakthrough from your tanks. How little your TD provides doesn't matter much, so you can go fixed super-structure if it's convenient. This means med. TDs with heavy cannons is an option, as are heavy/moderns with SH cannon.
As for cannons for the TD, high-velocities require AT tech and heavies require AA or AT. And mediums? They don't have enough piercing unless you mass them. But ...
Since the heavy how. doesn't fit on a medium, you'll want to get moderns or heavies eventually. One is 1945, the other 1943. And if you go the heavy route, you can take a short detour to super-heavy if you want to. This gets you the super-heavy cannon for a single extra tech instead of doing all of the AA/AT branch.
So: We first work towards imp.med. chassis with imp.med. howitzer, with a side-order of med. TDs with basic heavy cannons (good pierce and decent attacks), then work towards adv.hv. chassis with hv. howitzer, with a side-order of hv. TDs with SH cannon.
Yes, we're missing out on some TD boosts from AT tech, but it's still *very* powerfull.
And yes, heavies are expensive, but by the time we're building them, our armies are limited by supply, fuel and manpower, not just ICs, so the difference isn't big. On the other hand, the difference between getting a 1945 tech and two 1943 techs is quite big, so we can begin building earlier. On the third hand, we _are_ missing out on 30% reliability. Fourth, both adv.hv. and modern have 75 basic armour, so we *are* well-armoured, even missing those 30% reliability.
- 2
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.
BFG are really only usable for a sort of defensive 'light' TD formation, and/or you didn't want to go deep into the AT tree to unlock the last guns, which also precludes you from getting a couple of the last TD upgrades. Since these TD formation formations are defensive in nature, their cost becomes more of a factor. For any other purpose, the extra piercing is practically useless, and the extra attacks/loss of breakthrough (assuming heavy anyway) isn't generally worth it.
A 9/1+5 mot/HTD would have about 147 piercing with only 2 upgrades (171 with all 3). The cheapest HTD with BFG I could design ended up with 912 IC, 1S5T2C. Using my typical 'battalion a day' that would be 192 factories, 192 steel, 960 tungsten, 384 chrome.
The runner up in terms of piercing, HVC3+squeeze, has the same basic hard attack, is a lot cheaper itself, can be mounted on a medium chassis to be cheaper again, and would have 137 piercing in the same 9/1+5. 137 was shown in cloak's video to be 'enough' for anything short of absolutely juiced advanced heavies/moderns. This battalion would only cost 480 IC, 4S3T1C. For a battalion a day that would be 101.1 factories, 404.4 steel, 303.3 tungsten, 101.1 chrome. Dramatically less factories/resources for what is largely the same effect in terms of piercing. If we discount additional MTD by what that width would have otherwise been (motorized), each MTD upgrade only costs 334.5, which means we can grab 1 more which would raise its piercing to be about the same with 149, but we'd be seeing the advantage of far more hard attack and save a bunch of special resources.
In the end the dynamic is that using HVC3 instead of SHC is cheaper for 'the same' piercing, with 'more' hard attack.
- 1
Heresy!
Hmm, I think you're somewhat locked into an MP mindset. I don't recall ever having seen a hard division in SP, so only soft attack and "medium" attack matters there. And the BFG has an edge of 5 and ca. 10 on the HVC3 there.
There's also the quibble that an MTD is the worst choice for boosting the armour of a division. Though, of course, an HTD doesn't have to use BFG, it can do HVC3 for the cost reduction. Hmm, should probably still go for fixed super-structure for the extra reliability for more armour...
But even so, I think your conclusion is right, that the BFG is too expensive to be worth it. Personally, I'm doing it next time for the
-factor and because cost-efficiency shouldn't matter to me that late in the game.
I played a lot with tank designer, and tried all kind of combinations, even SP artilllery in old models to get cheap super powerful art. also 12km shock inf.
but my best templates are 3, each one of them is designed to win as Poland vs Germany and teh SUnion with each of the avaialable kings.then they use 36 chassis.
if you are in late war , you should adapt them.
Levea the whole play list
but my best templates are 3, each one of them is designed to win as Poland vs Germany and teh SUnion with each of the avaialable kings.then they use 36 chassis.
if you are in late war , you should adapt them.
Levea the whole play list
Also i made a last adaptation to conquer the balnks with just 18 divisions as Turkey. that one is more late design.
'More junk' is my favorite TD meta, to be deployed in every space marine division
- 1