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

[jju_57]

They did change how division vs battalion bonuses/doctrines work, however. Since modifiers are frequently multiplicative, this can have a significant effect on the soft attack values you can achieve with different units for example. It's why there were sweaty tactics to manipulate what "type" a division was in earlier patches. You could make "infantry" divisions with different types of tanks and get all the "infantry" benefits applied, or make something technically an "artillery" division just to stack more bonuses for nations that have that adviser type. Or stack both infantry and cavalry bonuses while using a number of battalions that were neither.

This patch changed how that works, and in so doing altered the balance/bonuses available to artillery (and other battalion types).

Non-binary pen makes AT more viable than previously. In earlier patches, armor-stacked heavy tanks could not be penetrated by any similar-tech inf/line AT division. With partial penetration, that isn't true and these types of divisions/partial countermeasures which previously did minimal damage can cause more problems.

I haven't played around with SPAA/other AA options this patch, but AA getting massively buffed is part of what made the previous tank meta take over. Prior to that, HOI was an air war because CAS ignores armor and let ORG walls severely punish expensive tank divisions.

I agree that the combat mechanics changed and therefore the old meta is no longer the case. Where I disagree is the statments others have said that tanks are basically useless. And while there is partial penetration it's really eaSY to get enough armor to even avoid partial penetration. And the only way to guarantee full penetration (for mediums or heavies) is to use a TD unit. MOT-AT or AT won't reach full penetration if you stack armor. And before SA was still very ciable against ARM divisions because hardness was lower. As hardness for the division increases you need even larger SA values to remain on par.

And of course the values change all the time. The last patch reduced CAS. So the next patch can easily change other areas.

My argument is with anyone that says tanks are useless, can be penetrated by artillery or that you don't build them because you get better results with MOT. These are the false statements I'm calling out.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

I agree that the combat mechanics changed and therefore the old meta is no longer the case. Where I disagree is the statments others have said that tanks are basically useless. And while there is partial penetration it's really each to get enough armor to even avoid partial penetration. And the only way to guarantee full penetration (for mediums or heavies) is to use a TD unit. MOT-AT or AT won't reach full penetration if you stack armor. And before SA was still very ciable against ARM divisions because hardness was lower. As hardness for the division increases you need even larger SA values to remain on par.

And of course the values change all the time. The last patch reduced CAS. So the next patch can easily change other areas.

My argument is with anyone that says tanks are useless, can be penetrated by artillery or that you don't build them because you get better results with MOT. These are the false statements I'm calling out.

Theyre really not though when you take into account cost.

Play around with the ingame division designer. Its shocking how much more tanks cost, even when you choose the cheapest possible options to the point that their stats are even lower per width.

Armor bonuses are of course really good, but at best theyre +50%, correct? If you can get two motorized divisions for the cost 1 tank division (and thats really generous honestly), then that bonus really gets pushed aside, and thats assuming you get full armor bonus all the time, which is not always reliable.

 

[Corpse Fool]

Armor bonuses are of course really good, but at best theyre +50%, correct?

Armour bonus should be a 2.8x multi to combat effectiveness.

 

[jju_57]

Theyre really not though when you take into account cost.

Play around with the ingame division designer. Its shocking how much more tanks cost, even when you choose the cheapest possible options to the point that their stats are even lower per width.

Armor bonuses are of course really good, but at best theyre +50%, correct? If you can get two motorized divisions for the cost 1 tank division (and thats really generous honestly), then that bonus really gets pushed aside, and thats assuming you get full armor bonus all the time, which is not always reliable.

Yes tanks are expensive. They are more expensive then before the DLC. But that still doesn't mean they are not the way to go. It's not impossible for Germany, SOV or USA to get many tank divisions with really good medium or heavy tanks that crush non-tank divisions.

So I can't have 40 divisions like I used to. But I can still make 20 or so by around 1941.

What I'm waiting for is some proof that if you ignore tanks and instead build MOT and ART you defeat players that built medium or heavy tanks.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

Yes tanks are expensive. They are more expensive then before the DLC. But that still doesn't mean they are not the way to go. It's not impossible for Germany, SOV or USA to get many tank divisions with really good medium or heavy tanks that crush non-tank divisions.

So I can't have 40 divisions like I used to. But I can still make 20 or so by around 1941.


What I'm waiting for is some proof that if you ignore tanks and instead build MOT and ART you defeat players that built medium or heavy tanks.

Im not saying that theyre completely useless, but generally speaking youre much better served to just reallocate that production youd spend on tanks into stronger airforce and/or more motorized and youd be better off. Its not a pure choose one or the other situation, and motorized with their speed, breakthrough and increased hardness fills most of the role tanks used to outside of armor value

All else equal, wouldnt you think that a better airforce and more motorized beats tank divisions? Based on my personal experiences, I would, but I wouldnt mind at all being proven wrong.

and if youre not playing as a high production major tanks are really prohibitively expensive

 

[jju_57]

All else equal, wouldnt you think that a better airforce and more motorized beats tank divisions? Based on my personal experiences, I would, but I wouldnt mind at all being proven wrong.

and if youre not playing as a high production major tanks are really prohibitively expensive

I actually did a test of this. Two runs vs a human SOV player. In the first run I did not build tanks as Germany but relied on air and MOT. There were no TD's, tanks, SPA's or SPAA's. The SOV player tried to build identical armies for both runs.

In the second test I built medium tanks. We played till January 1942 in both runs. I ahd a way harder time without tanks and relying on MOT. It was extremely hard to make those initial breaks in the defensive line. With tanks I punched holes in the line at key points. I did substantially better with tanks then without using tanks.

And almost anyone can try this even against the AI. Yes you'll win against the AI but watch how the fight goes.

 

[Corpse Fool]

I actually did a test of this. Two runs vs a human SOV player. In the first run I did not build tanks as Germany but relied on air and MOT. There were no TD's, tanks, SPA's or SPAA's. The SOV player tried to build identical armies for both runs.

In the second test I built medium tanks. We played till January 1942 in both runs. I ahd a way harder time without tanks and relying on MOT. It was extremely hard to make those initial breaks in the defensive line. With tanks I punched holes in the line at key points. I did substantially better with tanks then without using tanks.

And almost anyone can try this even against the AI. Yes you'll win against the AI but watch how the fight goes.

What sorts of formation designs were you using?

 

[jju_57]

What sorts of formation designs were you using?

Well the MOT was of two types. 10xMOT + M-AT and support or 9xMOt+1xMOT_ART+1xMOT-AT and support. Thanks were medium 20 and 21 width with some of the older ones having light TD's with 5 medium and the newer ones all medium tanks. (This was before they changed TD's to 2 width).

Understand the goal of the test was to see if not using tanks made it easier or not. And the key factor is breakthroughs against well defended provicnes are much harder when you can't pierce the enemy and don't have your own tanks.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

Well the MOT was of two types. 10xMOT + M-AT and support or 9xMOt+1xMOT_ART+1xMOT-AT and support. Thanks were medium 20 and 21 width with some of the older ones having light TD's with 5 medium and the newer ones all medium tanks. (This was before they changed TD's to 2 width).

Understand the goal of the test was to see if not using tanks made it easier or not. And the key factor is breakthroughs against well defended provicnes are much harder when you can't pierce the enemy and don't have your own tanks.

Hmm while I appreciate your tests and look forward to trying my own based on your feedback, for offensive breakthroughs Id definitely be favoring and expecting a much higher percentage of motorized artillery. The ones you used are basically pure infantry level of damage, which I typically wouldnt try to use for offense, so Im not entirely sure if this is the best comparison test

 

[FLUX2226]

In the first run I did not build tanks as Germany but relied on air and MOT.

In the second test I built medium tanks.

Did you build the same amount of planes in both games?

 

[jju_57]

Did you build the same amount of planes in both games?

Nope. Had about 1000 bombers with tanks and 1800 without tanks.

Hmm while I appreciate your tests and look forward to trying my own based on your feedback, for offensive breakthroughs Id definitely be favoring and expecting a much higher percentage of motorized artillery. The ones you used are basically pure infantry level of damage, which I typically wouldnt try to use for offense, so Im not entirely sure if this is the best comparison test

One key fact and why I did the test against a human as SOV was because they used their tanks to blunt and counter attack my advances. But as I said you can still do a test against the AI. Just make sure you give the AI max benefit on the sliders. You will then see the difference in the original attacks and breakthroughs.

 

[Th3master]

Im not saying that theyre completely useless, but generally speaking youre much better served to just reallocate that production youd spend on tanks into stronger airforce and/or more motorized and youd be better off. Its not a pure choose one or the other situation, and motorized with their speed, breakthrough and increased hardness fills most of the role tanks used to outside of armor value

All else equal, wouldnt you think that a better airforce and more motorized beats tank divisions? Based on my personal experiences, I would, but I wouldnt mind at all being proven wrong.

and if youre not playing as a high production major tanks are really prohibitively expensive

im pretty sure that you also get equipment back from combats now. If you invest in making tanks with higher reliability you end up losing less tanks in combat.

That being said I do think tanks are a little bit too expensive. I think maybe this could be compensated for by increasing the IC cost of infantry equipment.

 

[Corpse Fool]

im pretty sure that you also get equipment back from combats now.

Always did.

 

[sdplissken]

im pretty sure that you also get equipment back from combats now. If you invest in making tanks with higher reliability you end up losing less tanks in combat.

That being said I do think tanks are a little bit too expensive. I think maybe this could be compensated for by increasing the IC cost of infantry equipment.

I think they need some other kind of buff maybe something like initiative or coordination. honestly not sure what it’s kind of difficulty to model

 

[Cavalry]

im pretty sure that you also get equipment back from combats now. If you invest in making tanks with higher reliability you end up losing less tanks in combat.

Yeah, and reliable increase Org regain too. It is hard to measure these though it is interesting to know what the points dev use to balance.

The cost of a comparable 1941 DLC medium tank is about 18 vs 13 of non DLC. But now you can have very cheap MT that still give armor at medium level.
Here what kind of medium tank you can get from 13 IC, the armor is 62 vs 80 on non DLC patch. But German AI infantry in my current game only have piercing 14 (support AA1). And they said the armor bonus will start to work at 75% piercing level.

 

[lazarikho]

What you should take note is on role stats, for example: if i want a tank destroyer for attack, i would give him a high velocity cannon but not give him the Tank destroyer role because even do i lose a lot of piercing, i also lose a outstanding 145% breaktrough with it:

 

[jju_57]

What you should take note is on role stats, for example: if i want a tank destroyer for attack, i would give him a high velocity cannon but not give him the Tank destroyer role because even do i lose a lot of piercing, i also lose a outstanding 145% breaktrough with it:

I think you made an error there. Tanks lose piercing. TD's GAIN piercing and lose breakthrough.

What you do is create one TD battalion which has much fewer units and then use the rest as tanks for breakthrough. Key now is to mix and match for the division.

 

[FLUX2226]

I've read a few times that tanks use more fuel now. How though? Base fuel consumption of all chassis are the same (2.0) and it only scales with engine upgrades while previously heavier tanks needed more fuel. Meaning light tanks are equally or slightly more fuel-hungry now, but the rest comes off better. Super-heavy tanks use just a quarter of what they needed pre-NSB. Does the math not work as it seems or why do people say that fuel consumption got nerfed?

 

[sdplissken]

They changed the way piercing works in NSB as it’s no longer binary. However… I think they really screwed up the numbers. I think AT 2 has 100 piercing and AT 3 is 125. You are good as long as you are within 75% of the piercing meaning at 75 for the 100 piercing. The closer you get to the piercing the less damage you take.

But it’s pretty difficult to get to that number and I wonder if that’s by design. I guess they are high velocity guns, and should be ok on the defense but you shouldn’t be able to attack with them or TDs for that matter.

However if I remember properly AT units have less hard attack meaning they will roll a lot less often than TDs

 

[Cavalry]

What you should take note is on role stats, for example: if i want a tank destroyer for attack, i would give him a high velocity cannon but not give him the Tank destroyer role because even do i lose a lot of piercing, i also lose a outstanding 145% breaktrough with it:

Thanks. For TD in attack to replace tank, one can use the regular tank cannon, it didn't get soft attack reduce, and cheaper than the high velocity gun.