Is it me, or are tanks worse now?...please discuss.

jju_57

Field Marshal
On Probation
47 Badges
Oct 13, 2003
13.738
1.966
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Semper Fi
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
Quick answer is: It's you.

Just because it cost more does not make it bad or worse. That is the whole premise of your argument which is a fallacy in argument.

Worse would be if it cost more and they preformed worse. In regard to performance they are just as good and probably better IF you design your tank units properly.

And remember the cost for you might be higher but then so is the cost for everyone else.
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:

Voigt

General
64 Badges
Mar 15, 2012
1.919
1.882
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
I like my 1939 Medium Chassis with +9 Engine, welded armour, christie suspension, three man turret 1939 improved howitzer, armour skirt, sloped armour, radio and easy maintenance hatches.
Roughly 26 iC per tank, 100% reliability , 12 km/h speed. If designated as tanks I can do 5 mot, 5 tanks in a division for quite cheap and gettint the doctrine boni for armour.
Sure CAS is a damage multiplier as it always was, but AA and especially terrain limits it effects, and often you need both cas and good tanks to break important points,nfaster than the enemy can reinforce and reorg.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:

Gigaus

Sergeant
Jun 27, 2017
51
92
The big question is... if it the investment even pays off.
With a basic 1939 medium chassis with a close support gun that costs 16.2 IC, classifying it as a tank and using it in a 15 tank + 5 mot division costs 12837.5 IC, whereas classifying it as an SPG and using it in a 10 SPG + 5 mot division costs 6519.5 IC. The tank version has 50% SA and 50% more breakthrough than the SPG version, but costs basically twice as much. Using 4 spg divisions saves 25272 IC over 4 tank divisions, which is enough to instead make over 1100 CAS. With that sort of tradeoff, I'd say it's well beyond the realm of "reasonable people could disagree". Having 4 "good enough" SPG divisions + 1100 CAS is just way, WAY stronger than 4 "great" tank divisions with how nutty planes are right now. In fact, I think a better case could be made for not making any armored units at all and just going all-in on planes with maybe some mot or 50% discount mech divisions to support them. It depends on how much you value shock divisions I guess.

Outside resource shortages I don't see regular tanks having any sort of niche, at least against the AI.

This. Thiiiiis. This is what I'm getting at. I know people are thinking I'm talking about the singular meta, or even the combat meta; I'm not.

This is an economy game with a side of combat.

You're not JUST building nothing but tanks in your military; You're building infantry, trucks, cookies, cannons, planes, and now trains on top of it. You don't have infinite mils, not until late game at least, so the question, the real meta, is 'How many mils do I need?' How many mils do I need to pump out 1 a day, or 2, or 15? DO I need to put mils on this? Are my mils better spent on something else?

This is why I bring up Arts; Yes, arts are not a breakthrough unit. They're also not alone in a unit either.
But for SA, there are only two real options: Art and tanks. Infantry doesn't do good SA until late game and with the right buffs on them. So, art and tanks.
If both do the same amount of SA, and that's the factor you're looking at, which is better? The unit that costs 4 IC/1 mil to make, or the one that costs 12ic/3 mils to make?
Reman hit it on the head; If you switch the units around and change it so that you have the same in the one value you want, in this case SA, while needing less, that means you can take those mils off to put on something more useful, like planes which are currently the strongest damage dealer. So now apply that to something like Art as well, which again, you need to research anyway to upgrade the tanks, can be buffed multiple ways, including cheesy ways, to have the same or more SA as a SPA while still costing 30% or less of what a SPA or tank would. That's 2 to 6 mils that can be taken off tank production, and put literally anywhere else.

And I already here it coming; breakthrough, armor, hardness-- Yes they're lower by themselves. All of the above need Mot and Mech regardless due to org anyway; Mech can now be upgraded to be comparable to light tanks or medium tanks late game. Breakthrough and hardness is covered by Mech; Armor is meaningless in multiplayer due to the existence of Hart and TDs with super pen. Remember, you only need one, and maybe a support, and that's enough to beat anything that isn't a HT in armor.

What are you all on about? tanks are amazing!
Did teh german civil war yesterday and used my 2 litle tonk devisiosn to great effect, got screwed by the AI so i got locked out of big parts of my focus tree (THANKS FRANCE)
Tried again today and i won even faster by making more use of those 2 tank devisions you get to have.

The Ai is currently broken; They didn't hook up the new AI that understands that supply hubs are a thing correctly, so they're getting their asses handed to them on the supply side. They're building infrastructure thinking it'll fix the fact their railways have been destroyed and aren't switching hub modes. You basically walked over them because they're banging their head against a wall XD

Bottom line: You can't use the old meta and expect it to work like it used to. Experiment, play, figure out what works and what doesn't, and why. Also, terrain may have more influence than previously.

I think the targeting changes have had some very interesting effects. I have had good success with a range of templates from 12 to 25, as long as I could supply and equip them, and mixing them hasn't bothered horribly, either.

One is that if you do actually end up with a mismatch, like an actual 3 on 1 fight, where there's no rescue or support for the 1, they're in trouble very quickly. I've seen org bites of 3 to 4 a day at times in those situations.

Also, the 'worried about' small-div spam meta? No, I've seen too many small units just get plowed under by bigger units.

Still, you can't just take your old 'invincible' 40 wide tank division, aim at the line and let it go, expecting automatic victory anymore.

That's the point of this whole thread though....To figure out the new meta. The question, broadly, is 'are tanks even apart of the new meta?' and the answer is a bit mixed. Normal tanks seem to be a hard no, they are not. TD has some potential, but isn't a cure all, SPA is a specialist now, but by and large tanks as a concept are not prime anymore.

Also, I'd like to point out: The combat hasn't changed. No, it really hasn't; They just changed a few buffs/maluses in regard to terrain and weather, added in options for dealing with forts, and an untested supply system. Combat hasn't changed, the map hasn't changed, no units besides the tanks have changed.....It's still the same combat it was before the DLC. It's about the same when one character gets a rework in a game, and everything else is the same or just slightly changed; Still the same game, just one step to the left or right.

Thus, the meta hasn't changed, just the pieces you use to achieve that meta have.

Quick answer is: It's you.

Just because it cost more does not make it bad or worse. That is the whole premise of your argument which is a fallacy in argument.

Worse would be if it cost more and they preformed worse. In regard to performance they are just as good and probably better IF you design your tank units properly.

And remember the cost for you might be higher but then so is the cost for everyone else.

Except....that they are worse...

If we compare to pre-DLC, tanks were just flat better. Fixed cost, that was lower; higher stats across the board; consistent fuel usage; Required one tech to build. There isn't even a question there: pre-nsb tanks are numerically and effectually better.

Before, I could build a Light tank that got upto 29 SA before bonuses, only lost 4 kph, and still cost 10 ic. Conversely, a H.SPA could get upto 100+ SA before bonuses with a fixed cost.

Now? There are no Light, heavy, or medium in regards to those; All of them share the same weapons. All have the same hard cap on any given stat. The only difference between the weights now is starting cost, some armor, speed in regards to heavies, and what turret you can use. You're not going to see anything above ib 60 sa and breakthrough.

Putting it aside, We've already pointed out that the cost isn't a fallacy, it's the whole point. If you're wasting production on a unit that is effectually worse than other options available, then you're in a worse position. It'd be the same as saying 'It's not worse to build just units of SPAA, you're just doing it wrong' when literally anything else is available. Again, The option is build tanks, or build SPA, Art, Mech AND build Cas; Which is the better option in terms of smashing the enemy line?
 
Last edited:
  • 10Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:

Th3master

Rear Admiral
52 Badges
Aug 10, 2014
278
392
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • March of the Eagles
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
If we compare to pre-DLC, tanks were just flat better. Fixed cost, that was lower; higher stats across the board; consistent fuel usage; Required one tech to build. There isn't even a question there: pre-nsb tanks are numerically and effectually better.
Tanks are 100% worse in this patch and that's not even a bad thing. Tanks still dominate if used correctly and are a bit stronger in early game and weaker late game. I'm just bummed that the tank designer thins out around 1942 like with all tech in this game and SPGs and SPAA are basically worthless now.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:

jju_57

Field Marshal
On Probation
47 Badges
Oct 13, 2003
13.738
1.966
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Semper Fi
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
Except....that they are worse...

If we compare to pre-DLC, tanks were just flat better. Fixed cost, that was lower; higher stats across the board; consistent fuel usage; Required one tech to build. There isn't even a question there: pre-nsb tanks are numerically and effectually better.

Before, I could build a Light tank that got upto 29 SA before bonuses, only lost 4 kph, and still cost 10 ic. Conversely, a H.SPA could get upto 100+ SA before bonuses with a fixed cost.

Now? There are no Light, heavy, or medium in regards to those; All of them share the same weapons. All have the same hard cap on any given stat. The only difference between the weights now is starting cost, some armor, speed in regards to heavies, and what turret you can use. You're not going to see anything above ib 60 sa and breakthrough.

Putting it aside, We've already pointed out that the cost isn't a fallacy, it's the whole point. If you're wasting production on a unit that is effectually worse than other options available, then you're in a worse position. It'd be the same as saying 'It's not worse to build just units of SPAA, you're just doing it wrong' when literally anything else is available. Again, The option is build tanks, or build SPA, Art, Mech AND build Cas; Which is the better option in terms of smashing the enemy line?

Everything you just posted said they were CHEAPER, but not BETTER when compared to combat performance in the their respective games.

See you make a basic error. You are looking at the tanks in the older version vs. tanks in this version. But you leave out the combat mechanics. Those were also changed.

I can make a tank that the older version could never penetrate. And that alone shows they were NOT better.

Now how is building tanks worse than the "other options avaliable". Heck you never even state what those other options are.

SPA is 3 width and almost no breakthrough.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:

Cavalry

Field Marshal
7 Badges
Jul 24, 2001
4.192
696
Visit site
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
To sum up, we can build TD and SP Arty to have soft attack, piercing, armor, breakthrough.. of tank, but have 3 width, less hardness than tank? And much cheaper

On the plus side, tank now can have piercing the same as TD, soft attack like SP Arty, but still keep 2 width and hardness. And get better bonus from doctrines.

The question is, do we use a mix or completetly not using tank battalions?

How about mix tank for breakthrough and armor, use the best armor but cheaper gun.
TD use the best AT gun, but less other thing.
SP Arty use the best howitzer, but less every thing else.

The "reference" armor templates of the Developers used when they design the game probably are :
------
Amored Spearhead:
2xSP-ART + 3xARM + 4xMOT [+ ART/AT/MAIN/LOG] (20 width)
Has great SA, good HA and decent ORG. A good spearhead and breakthrough division that can hold against counter-attacks.

Assault Gun Division:
4xSP-ART + 2xARM + 2xMOT [+ART] (20 width)
Incredible SA that rips through enemy Infantry, with (barely) acceptable ORG value.

Mixed Armor Division:
2xSP-ART + 3xARM + 1xTD + 3xMECH (20 width)
Mixed armor division that can deal with any situation.


Or we can try to make things even cheaper.

TD: maximize Armor/BRK only and use a few battalions.
SP-Arty: maximize soft attack only, and use as main damage dealer.
No tank use.


In a 30w template like 2 TD -4 SPArty-5 MOT- 1 SPAA or 1 TD- 5 SPArty- 5 MOT- 1SP AA.
If we use only 1 tank variant like TD and MOT, then we cannot use cheaper vehicle, we cannot use both a TD battalion with max SA and another TD battalion prioritize armor.

Or we can build special TD for soft attack and SPArty for Armor and Breakthrough! :)
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:

STABBY5

Colonel
49 Badges
Feb 13, 2016
1.086
613
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Victoria 2
  • War of the Roses
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Victoria: Revolutions
Tanks are just bad now. They are very expensive costing tons of fuel and supply, and XP only to be completely countered by air or cheap anti-tank. Tank support companies are worth it but they also cut the combat stats, including armor in half.
 

Cavalry

Field Marshal
7 Badges
Jul 24, 2001
4.192
696
Visit site
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
While tank is expensive in general, only them can use Heavy machine gun only. This machine gun is a favourite! That make a early heavy tank cost the same as a starting light BT 7 tank; but with great armor and hardness and breakthrough, even the battalion cost just 550 vs 825 of light tank. And it doesn't use Tunsten or Chromium.
We don't need soft attack here, there are other light tank battalion, TD or SPG for that. Or you can mix with infantry and line arty. :D

1637909489850.png
 
Last edited:
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:

Warlock-Engineer

Corporal
Aug 20, 2021
28
100
Quick answer is: It's you.

Just because it cost more does not make it bad or worse. That is the whole premise of your argument which is a fallacy in argument.

Worse would be if it cost more and they preformed worse. In regard to performance they are just as good and probably better IF you design your tank units properly.

And remember the cost for you might be higher but then so is the cost for everyone else.
If something costs more and performs the same, that means that it is, in fact, objectively worse.
 
  • 14Like
  • 2
Reactions:

krios41

General
62 Badges
May 14, 2016
2.432
603
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • War of the Roses
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Prison Architect
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • BATTLETECH
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
The Ai is currently broken; They didn't hook up the new AI that understands that supply hubs are a thing correctly, so they're getting their asses handed to them on the supply side. They're building infrastructure thinking it'll fix the fact their railways have been destroyed and aren't switching hub modes. You basically walked over them because they're banging their head against a wall XD
Wrong. Infact, whenever my tanks smashed trough their line and went for their supply hubs the AI trew caution to the win and desperatly tried to get that hub back, i've never seen the AI be that agressive before. No, i won because i smashed trough with my tanks and rushed their supply hubs, depriving them of supplies before i made big encirclements :p
THe same is happening in the late game, its 1950 fo me now, i lost the airwar, peroid, i can't pull that one back. My infantry can't push because, well, its infantry, fighting in red air and udner CAS fire... but wherever my tanks show up i crush the enemy, so i'm basicly constantly putting out fires with those tanks and it works.

Tough today i'l be playing MP with some aquintances and promised i'd co-op play germany with someone, i'l try my tanks in MP and see how well they hold up against actual players.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:

sr999

Colonel
76 Badges
Nov 15, 2009
971
366
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris Sign-up
If something costs more and performs the same, that means that it is, in fact, objectively worse.

Without criticism, I would nuance your statement to make it more general. For "objectively worse" I would substitute "constructively worse depending on context". The context of course includes whether all nations are "nerfed" in the same way, especially in terms of its effects on strategy; etc.

So one takeaway might be that, if tanks are constructively worse "value-for-IC" than TD/SPG across the board equally for all nations, then (say) Germany following the historical path, and using military builds centering around medium tank divisions (as presumably the AI will continue to do so at least for the historical option!), would become relatively disadvantaged in the early years against France etc. With optimal play on both sides, this may even be a good thing in terms of game balance! I certainly hope so...

It'll be fascinating to hear about the experiments of German players in MP games!
 
  • 1
Reactions:

Medu Salem

First Lieutenant
63 Badges
Nov 8, 2015
263
367
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
With a basic 1939 medium chassis with a close support gun that costs 16.2 IC, classifying it as a tank and using it in a 15 tank + 5 mot division costs 12837.5 IC, whereas classifying it as an SPG and using it in a 10 SPG + 5 mot division costs 6519.5 IC. The tank version has 50% SA and 50% more breakthrough than the SPG version, but costs basically twice as much. Using 4 spg divisions saves 25272 IC over 4 tank divisions, which is enough to instead make over 1100 CAS. With that sort of tradeoff, I'd say it's well beyond the realm of "reasonable people could disagree". Having 4 "good enough" SPG divisions + 1100 CAS is just way, WAY stronger than 4 "great" tank divisions with how nutty planes are right now. In fact, I think a better case could be made for not making any armored units at all and just going all-in on planes with maybe some mot or 50% discount mech divisions to support them. It depends on how much you value shock divisions I guess.

Outside resource shortages I don't see regular tanks having any sort of niche, at least against the AI.

I agree, if you take other units like planes or motorized/mechanized into consideration and what they do for their buck, then tanks are probably way to expensive now to rely on for if you want an efficient strategy.

Personally I say against AI almost anything works anyway, because the AI will cripple itself with so many other bad decisions, and I don't really care much about MP games. So it's basically a matter of taste if you want to make the game super easy vs just easy.

That CAS spam seems basically to become part of a new meta now is something quite a few people mentioned in other threads already. Which btw has its own downside because you then also need to import tons more rubber, maybe also tanking your economy.

Hence why I wrote "if you are really using tanks in your strategy" because I assume that we want to use tanks, even if I know there are now other ways without tanks to achieve more with same IC.... But it kinda gets really gamey and you miss out on some of the fun.




With default Pz.IV ... 15 regular +5 mot, vs 10 spg + 5 mot (+ couple standard support companies each) I get ~1.44 more dmg, ~1.40 more breakthrough, but ~1.67 the costs for regs vs spgs.

Sure, regulars are still more expensive for the increase in dmg & breakthrough, but comparably not really all that far off. In relative terms like ~1.67 / ~1.40 = 20%... so the regular divisions are 20% worse in production costs than the SPGs divisions or the SPGs 20% better than regs however you want to see it.

Leaving other units (planes/motor./mech.) out... the more interesting part is you could basically make 1.67 SPG divisions for each regular, but each of the SPGs will then have considerably worse stats (likely you will faceroll the AI with 40w SPGs anyway)

That or just invest the saved cost elsewhere like you suggested.


Where things get a bit more spicy is for division widths way smaller than 40. If you only have 20w divisions then the fixed cost part of the division will make up a much bigger part of the division cost and the SPG cost saving advantage will be even smaller... and the SPG unit will not throw a lot of punch either.


Another thing to consider is the organization of the division. Bigger width divisions are always worse than smaller width. And SPGs also have worse organization than regulars. So huge SPG only divisions will have the absolut worst organization, while small regular only divisions will have the best. That might also change things in real combat... because what good is the 40w if it gets knocked out of combat faster when a lot of small divisions gang up on it. (There is also currently a meta discussion elsewhere about organization spam so that might play into it)


Fielding 40w divisions, while making things more equipment/production cost efficient, is still a supply disaster, that is if you don't intend to use a fleet of transport planes to game the supply system, like some already do and which I guess will be nerfed soon since the Devs already caught on to it, so I wouldn't build up future strategies to rely on it.
 
Last edited:

Medu Salem

First Lieutenant
63 Badges
Nov 8, 2015
263
367
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Tyranny: Gold Edition
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
I think with the advent of the tank designer, the whole paradigm of Battalion = X number vehicles, and approximately X/2 number of vehicles SPART, TD etc is broken.

You should build AFVs and put them in battalions of say 50 vehicles. The battalion stats are directly related to the vehicle stats.

I agree with that even more.

As I wrote in other threads with the issue already they should have standardized all the armored battalions to have 2 width and for all battalions of the same tank size to have the same amount equipment.


Or even better yet... remove dedicated SPG/TD battalions in the division designer and tank roles in the tank designer...

... and instead in the division designer just have Light/Medium/Heavy/Modern Tank battalions and assign individual tags to each battalion to specify which equipment you want in that battalion.

That would give the most flexibility on how to design your divisions and make best use of the equipment you produce.

No more different battalion combat width mess, no more different battalion equipment amount mess.

The only way to save production cost then would be simply have less battalions per division or just make cheaper tanks... like it should be.


Would make it much easier to balance all the combat stats of various modules etc, because then you can directly compare the performance of everything... because then instead of fiddling with combat widths or amounts of equipment you simply nerf/buff the according combat stat on the module and be done with it.
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
Reactions:

Jays298

Major
14 Badges
Mar 21, 2011
709
1.035
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Rome Gold
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Imperator: Rome
More choices. More granular. We cannot look back, only forward.

I hope armor / piercing is more of a sliding scale granular thing now.

Only thing that really confuses me is when you get the certain medium chassis, it is basically set up as a howitzer artillery but classified as a tank. I didn't get the medium cannon until I think I did the right artillery tech.

So basically I have tanks that perform like SPGs (soft attack) until I research artillery. The whole SPG / tank distinction seems weird now. It all makes sense with time.

In 1939 I have lots of tanks as Germany but that is because I'm using like ~16 width on average. And less tanks, more trucks than the old 6:4 ratio.

Tanks aren't the end all be all now. They have a function.

But it seems like you'd make either SpG/ howitzer builds or on the other extreme, TD / anti tank.

And have very little reasons to use a 15 soft attack, 15 hard attack cannon.