Tanks, does anyone use them?
- Thread starter Gus_Smedstad
- Start date
Rathelon
Prince
Finished my Germany game earlier, and had a few Panzers, but most of my army was mechanized infantry (all the Landsneckt I had built upgraded through the eras). A fresh Panzer would one-shot cities though.
alpaca
King of Ungulates
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 2,322
Don't remind me. It took me three games to find out rocket artillery starts without having to set up because I never built one but just upgraded my old artillery into it
J-man
Deity
The problem with tanks is their penalty for defence and attacking cities. In most of my games I have more aluminum then oil anyway.
Civ'ed
I ain't gotta explain a thing
I always use mech infantry.
it depends on the situation of course. tanks are superb to mech infantry in some scenarios:
1st: you dont have many units up to modern times to upgrade and want now to do the blitzkrieg. tanks can move after attacking unlike mech inf.
2nd: dont waste them in hills and forests. tanks are made for open terrain except the german ones, which can still move 3 hex through rough terrain.
3rd: if you have long distances to the border and want to strike at a single point (for example high def cities), tanks can attack and move away hexes to let another tank attack because of the "movement after battle rule". even if tanks get a penalty for attacking cities, they do still the most direct damage (melee damage) a land unit can do for their era. compare modern armor to mech inf not to normal tanks.
4th: its not true to tech faster towards electronics then towards combustion especially if you like wartechs more then anything else. the combustion path leads towards the most destroying military techs.
1st: you dont have many units up to modern times to upgrade and want now to do the blitzkrieg. tanks can move after attacking unlike mech inf.
2nd: dont waste them in hills and forests. tanks are made for open terrain except the german ones, which can still move 3 hex through rough terrain.
3rd: if you have long distances to the border and want to strike at a single point (for example high def cities), tanks can attack and move away hexes to let another tank attack because of the "movement after battle rule". even if tanks get a penalty for attacking cities, they do still the most direct damage (melee damage) a land unit can do for their era. compare modern armor to mech inf not to normal tanks.
4th: its not true to tech faster towards electronics then towards combustion especially if you like wartechs more then anything else. the combustion path leads towards the most destroying military techs.
Civ'ed
I ain't gotta explain a thing
True but one artillery and a mech infantry make quick work of a city with 27 defence.
I've never understood why Cav doesn't upgrade to Helicopters. They did in real life 
I use tanks when i need to build more units. They really are powerful, being able to move in, attack, then get out of the way so another tank can attack from the same hex.
I use tanks when i need to build more units. They really are powerful, being able to move in, attack, then get out of the way so another tank can attack from the same hex.
Gus_Smedstad
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 103
Yeah, actually, it is.
I just set up a game with Germany where I specifically set out to build Panzers. When the time came to launch, I had 5 Great Scientists stored... and I realized Electronics was only 3 techs away, as opposed to the 5 for Combustion. If I was looking at time to research, Electronics was still faster.
Combustion is only faster if you research Artillery before researching Biology for the needed oil. There are more duds along the bottom path as well, like Metallurgy.
I still was going to go ahead with it, but Biology revealed that I had no oil anywhere near me. So mech infantry it was. Again.
Rathelon
Prince
I've never understood why Cav doesn't upgrade to Helicopters. They did in real life
Actually cavalry became armor. I was a tanker, and if you look at the Army armor branch insignia, it is a tank superimposed over crossed sabres (the old cavalry insignia).
Air mobile cavalry (that being, the 1st Cavalry Division during Vietnam) was just a product of the specific conflict and terrain. When I served in 1st Cav it was an armor heavy division.
alpaca
King of Ungulates
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 2,322
I've never understood why Cav doesn't upgrade to Helicopters. They did in real life
They didn't. They might share some similar strategic roles (policing, mobility) but I'm not sure if it's fair to compare tactics of pre-modern wars to those of modern wars as they are quite different. In fact, I would argue this backwards: All upgrade paths should end somewhere. Longswordsmen and Crossbowmen shouldn't upgrade to rifles and Infantry shouldn't upgrade to Mech Inf.
I think this change might be well worth investigating because it resolves, or helps resolve, a couple of problems in one go (production is expensive compared to upgrades, upgraded veteran units are way stronger than anything your enemy could muster, you never build musketmen, etc.)
Of course, people will rage that they can't keep their level 25 units around anymore.
Polish
Warlord
I do use tanks in moderation. I find myself using a Tank, Infantry, Artillery combination for a fairly long time before I get to Mech Infantry. In my current game as Germany I have a half dozen Panzers--of course, they are pretty fast and stronger than regular tanks, but they are really kicking butt! Throw in a couple of fighters and it looks a lot like a blitzkreig.
I don't bother with tanks. The combat penalty when attacking cities is a big deal-breaker for me. With mech infantry, I can sometimes OHKO a city with just one of them.
Also, mech infantry aren't vulnerable to the anti-tank guns that the AI likes to build.
Also, mech infantry aren't vulnerable to the anti-tank guns that the AI likes to build.
IgnatiusTBarfat
Puppet Master
This should be what happens in CiV.
bryanw1995
Emperor
I think that they should start with blitz. then people would actually prefer them to mech inf in fresh builds most (but not all) of the time. alternatively, delay mech inf, maybe put tanks 2-3 techs before mech inf in the same tech progression path.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
No it shouldn't.
I've had the same thought. I've even been wondering if it would be better to have no upgrades at all. It's pretty ridiculous how you can almost stop building units after a while, because you get a core of elite units with 10 promotions, so they never die and they upgrade instantly to the best technology available. Barracks are almost useless, because by the time you can make them, you've already got a core army group with a lot of experience. And banning upgrades would create another choice- old experienced units vs. new inexperienced units - , and it would help the unit spam problem by forcing people to delete old units.
Also, some units are artificially made weak just because nothing upgrades to them- lancers and tanks being the prime examples.
edit- but like you say, it would prevent people from being to walk over the AI with invincible cavalry/artillery/mech infantry, and since everyone loves doing that at first, most people would hate this change.
I don't see why that would be ridiculous at all. I know the British Army has kept its regimental system for hundreds of years and just upgraded troop equipment. Each regiment works hard to maintain its own standards.
What is ridiculous is that you only need 10 units to conquer an enemy, never lose those 10 good units during an entire war, and don't need to back garrison your captured cities with new troops.
This way of thinking is so alien to me. The way I think is- I see a part of the game rules which leads to an imbalance, and I wonder if it should be changed to make things more fun. I think it's a bad thing when upgrading experienced units is so powerful that you almost never need to build new military units, because that takes away a big part of the game.
But I guess you think it's OK because it loosely simulates history? I've heard a lot of arguments like this before, like "It's OK for companion cavalry to be totally imbalanced because they were so powerful in real life" and it's hard for me to understand how people can think that way. Are you playing this as a game, or as a history lesson?
