Motorized is super good now

[Gefallener_Held]

This has to be fixed or modded. No use playing a WWII strategy game without panzers.

 

[shadowpho]

I’ve been playing ussr and having great success with motorized. I mostly focus on holding the line and fighters first but slowly introduce motorized for attacking

 

[FindFloppies]

This has to be fixed or modded. No use playing a WWII strategy game without panzers.

If you're in SP, if you want panzers, build them. If you don't want more motorized, don't build them. It's not difficult.

If it's bothering you in MP, then change the rules. People ban things they don't like to deal with for no good reason all the time, anyway...

It's not like the AI is going to out-think you, is it?

 

[sdplissken]

Don't they get popped pretty easily by tank divisions or td?

 

[FLUX2226]

Don't they get popped pretty easily by tank divisions or td?

A tank will win a 1v1, but the tank is alone while the cheaper motorized divisions are at least a group of two and can overwhelm/cut off or avoid the tank division (since they likely are faster as well).

TDs could probably match mot in cost, but they are defensive divisions and no good for attacking since they lack breakthrough and soft attack. And mot "only" has 40% hardness (with the mech 1 passive buff), so you still want to hit them with more soft than hard attack.

 

[Cavalry]

TDs could probably match mot in cost, but they are defensive divisions and no good for attacking since they lack breakthrough and soft attack.

TD can use tank cannon, so they have that same soft attack. Though for tip of the spear we can invest in some tank, but the xp cost for multiple vehicle can be a problem.

 

[Corpse Fool]

Buff mechanized equipment by giving them more breakthrough and hardness could balance it.

They actually reduced mek3 hardness from 80 to 75.

I understand that the cost has slightly increased but I mean, has it increased that much? I mean in all honesty I have the old numbers. They aren’t that far off.

How are you trying to compare them? On top of the 10 brk and 40% hardness, they chopped the cost of 15 trucks off and dropped supply costs. The mot inf only cost something like 130-150 IC per battalion.

How much hardness, attacks, breakthrough, armour, piercing, are you actually getting and how much IC, resources, XP, research, org, hp, supply, fuel is that costing you?

 

[DaleDVM]

I would think changing motorized hardness to 12.5% and then buffed to 25% after half tracks are researched. This would still leave them strong but not as overpowered as they are now. Perhaps a slight nerf to breakthrough as well. This IMHO would be better balanced AND more realistic.

 

[sdplissken]

They actually reduced mek3 hardness from 80 to 75.

How are you trying to compare them? On top of the 10 brk and 40% hardness, they chopped the cost of 15 trucks off and dropped supply costs. The mot inf only cost something like 130-150 IC per battalion.

How much hardness, attacks, breakthrough, armour, piercing, are you actually getting and how much IC, resources, XP, research, org, hp, supply, fuel is that costing you?

I am talking about tanks not motorized. I understand what they did to motorized.

For example stats from before NSB:


Medium Tank II
Defense:7.0 Breakthrough:51.0
Hardness:90.0% Soft attack:25.0
Hard attack:19.0 Max Speed:9.0 km/h
Armor:80.0 Piercing:81.0
Reliability:80.0% Fuel Usage:3.6
Production Cost:13.0

This isn't that far off of what you can produce for 14 ish IC.

A tank will win a 1v1, but the tank is alone while the cheaper motorized divisions are at least a group of two and can overwhelm/cut off or avoid the tank division (since they likely are faster as well).

TDs could probably match mot in cost, but they are defensive divisions and no good for attacking since they lack breakthrough and soft attack. And mot "only" has 40% hardness (with the mech 1 passive buff), so you still want to hit them with more soft than hard attack.

The thing is that... If they are killing motorized quickly enough the higher cost doesn't matter then does it. if they are killing them 5-1 or 6-1 ratio.

 

[CharlieFox]

There's been a lot of questionable balance choices.

I still think it's funny that, in response to people pointing out that tanks are too expensive for their performance, the cost of heavy tanks was increased.

Air is probably (in my unscientific estimate) 33-50% more important than it was before, and it was already the undefeated, reigning champion. I don't really care about realism, it's a non-sequitur when people invoke that, it doesn't make for good gameplay which is the only thing that really matters. Don't really relish the idea of having to wait 1.5-2.5 years for air to receive a rework that nerfs it into the ground either.

And there was already the precedent of MTG: the naval themed DLC that made battleships and carriers close to useless and not worth building. Not even the AI builds them and will cancel most historical ships under construction at game start: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/verify-man-the-guns-ai-production-fix.1477660/

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

I am talking about tanks not motorized. I understand what they did to motorized.

For example stats from before NSB:


Medium Tank II
Defense:7.0 Breakthrough:51.0
Hardness:90.0% Soft attack:25.0
Hard attack:19.0 Max Speed:9.0 km/h
Armor:80.0 Piercing:81.0
Reliability:80.0% Fuel Usage:3.6
Production Cost:13.0

This isn't that far off of what you can produce for 14 ish IC.


The thing is that... If they are killing motorized quickly enough the higher cost doesn't matter then does it. if they are killing them 5-1 or 6-1 ratio.

I dont think thats actually happening though. Depends on the scenario but Id imagine that motorized divisions dont actually lose out to tank ones once you equate cost. And thats speaking nothing of their overall utility which is likely better.

Im all for people doing tests though, wish there was an easy way to have like a battle sim arena in this game or something lol

 

[FLUX2226]

Medium Tank II
Defense:7.0 Breakthrough:51.0
Hardness:90.0% Soft attack:25.0
Hard attack:19.0 Max Speed:9.0 km/h
Armor:80.0 Piercing:81.0
Reliability:80.0% Fuel Usage:3.6
Production Cost:13.0

That is only true without NSB. If you try to replicate a generic "Medium Tank II" with the tank designer, it will cost you roughly 50% more IC, in my case 19.4 vs. 13 IC. But if you make a smart design, the resource costs will be much lower. My design only costs 1 steel and 1 tungsten whereas the generic one costs 2 tungsten and 3 steel. I used the basic medium cannon (1939) since the improved medium cannon is 1942 tech and the generic Medium Tank II is 1941 tech. Two man turret because the extra breakthrough of the three man turret isn't needed for this comparison and it would lower the speed to the point where I have to upgrade the engine. 1940 radio for greatly inproved defense and breakthrough (+65% each) and two additional machine guns to increase soft attack and defense to values comparable to the generic tank. Bogie suspension, welded armor and a gasoline engine are common and cost-effective parts. Fuel cost for tanks in NSB is generally lower than for generic tanks since all hulls have the same base consumption and it only scales with engine upgrades (meaning that for light tanks there's basically no difference while super-heavy tanks only use a quarter of what they use without NSB).

My "1941-valid" Panzer IV has very similar combat stats to the generic one, the only area where it falls off is piercing (60 vs. 81) which would require a better gun. Further upgrading the engine (max speed) or armor (armor, breakthrough) will add +1 resource cost each (doubling the currently required amount) which wouldn't be efficient for the minimal gain when trying to reach 9.0 km/h and 80 armor. Upgrading to the 1942 medium cannon will increase the resource cost by another 2.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

If you're in SP, if you want panzers, build them. If you don't want more motorized, don't build them. It's not difficult.

If it's bothering you in MP, then change the rules. People ban things they don't like to deal with for no good reason all the time, anyway...

It's not like the AI is going to out-think you, is it?

Because the AI can be beaten has no relevance to any of this. Units like tanks should have values that correspond with what they did, same as anything represented in the game. Neither I nor anyone should make meaningless or even counterproductive decisions for giggles.

Also, I only play with Expert Ai. Not sure where this snobbery about people who do not play multi player comes from.

 

[Corpse Fool]

wish there was an easy way to have like a battle sim arena in this game or something lol

Console commands.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

Ive tried but had limited success, seems like an awkward process. Guess I just need to be more creative lol

Console commands

 

[Corpse Fool]

Ive tried but had limited success, seems like an awkward process. Guess I just need to be more creative lol

Well, what are you trying to do? I generally turn the AI off, set techs and give appropriate amounts of manpower and equipment for whatever I'm trying to test. You can also use mods if you're trying to test specific mechanics and you want to remove as many variables as possible.

 

[Znail]

That is only true without NSB. If you try to replicate a generic "Medium Tank II" with the tank designer, it will cost you roughly 50% more IC, in my case 19.4 vs. 13 IC. But if you make a smart design, the resource costs will be much lower. My design only costs 1 steel and 1 tungsten whereas the generic one costs 2 tungsten and 3 steel. I used the basic medium cannon (1939) since the improved medium cannon is 1942 tech and the generic Medium Tank II is 1941 tech. Two man turret because the extra breakthrough of the three man turret isn't needed for this comparison and it would lower the speed to the point where I have to upgrade the engine. 1940 radio for greatly inproved defense and breakthrough (+65% each) and two additional machine guns to increase soft attack and defense to values comparable to the generic tank. Bogie suspension, welded armor and a gasoline engine are common and cost-effective parts. Fuel cost for tanks in NSB is generally lower than for generic tanks since all hulls have the same base consumption and it only scales with engine upgrades (meaning that for light tanks there's basically no difference while super-heavy tanks only use a quarter of what they use without NSB).

My "1941-valid" Panzer IV has very similar combat stats to the generic one, the only area where it falls off is piercing (60 vs. 81) which would require a better gun. Further upgrading the engine (max speed) or armor (armor, breakthrough) will add +1 resource cost each (doubling the currently required amount) which wouldn't be efficient for the minimal gain when trying to reach 9.0 km/h and 80 armor. Upgrading to the 1942 medium cannon will increase the resource cost by another 2.

View attachment 787030

This is also just trying for the same stats as you can also get significantly more then you could before in the stat of your choise, so the options are much greater now then before and that have a value as well. For instance so can you easily get a Light Tank in 36 with more soft attack then this medium tank in 41 and at less then half the cost. Just as you can make this one at lot cheaper by giving up on things you might not need, like speed or piercing. You could then make up with the lost piecing by including a TD and end up ahead.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

Well, what are you trying to do? I generally turn the AI off, set techs and give appropriate amounts of manpower and equipment for whatever I'm trying to test. You can also use mods if you're trying to test specific mechanics and you want to remove as many variables as possible.

Basically sim one on one or group vs group fights under similar conditions and see the results, then repeat the same scenario with different division types.

 

[Corpse Fool]

Basically sim one on one or group vs group fights under similar conditions and see the results, then repeat the same scenario with different division types.

Yeah. Just turn the AI off so that one side doesn't move around when you're busy setting up the other side with their research and equipment, formation designs, counts, etc. Then tag to the other side, set them up. Just tag yourself back and forth.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

Yeah. Just turn the AI off so that one side doesn't move around when you're busy setting up the other side with their research and equipment, formation designs, counts, etc. Then tag to the other side, set them up. Just tag yourself back and forth.

Thank you for the advice!