Tanks!

[bcaiko]

Post-patch, Tanks are sooooooo much more useful. I actually noticed because the AI was using them so effectively. They're now the same strength level as Mechanized Infantry, but can travel much further since the MI got nerfed in that regard. Well worth the oil now if you've got it, IMHO.

Thoughts?

 

[Glassmage]

Tanks are better now!

 

[Tabarnak]

T(h)anks! Now i can bet on oil.

 

[The Mad Russian]

I use almost nothing but tanks (MIs, MAs) in modern era warfare. But I have learned to use SAMS, Rocket Artillery, Artillery in conjunction with my airforce in such a way that whenever I launch an invasion or counter-attack I usually come out victorious.

 

[McRoos]

Units with Ranged attack abilities are the most powerfull in CIV V.
I always start with a few archers (Archery is one of my first Tech's to go after), erase some nearby CIV and march on.
Victory is almost a garanty !!

 

[TPQ]

Thoughts?

I still think bombers are a better use of oil overall, but at least tanks arguably now have a place on the Civ5 battlefield.

However, I tend to go with melee plus siege from the very early game, so by the time modern rolls around, I have many highly promoted infantry and artillery, which make for a much better offensive force than tanks, especially when upgraded to mech inf and rocket artillery.

A few blitz/march/siege/triple terrain promoted mech infs can often take cities without any bombardment support.

 

[Civsassin]

I really like units that can move after attacking. Tanks fit that bill. If you put one into a border city that is under siege, it can destroy an attacker and return to the city to heal. You can't beat that. I use horseman the same way in the early game with Oligarchy.

 

[Strategist83]

I still think bombers are a better use of oil overall, but at least tanks arguably now have a place on the Civ5 battlefield.

However, I tend to go with melee plus siege from the very early game, so by the time modern rolls around, I have many highly promoted infantry and artillery, which make for a much better offensive force than tanks, especially when upgraded to mech inf and rocket artillery.

A few blitz/march/siege/triple terrain promoted mech infs can often take cities without any bombardment support.

'Arguably' is an understatement, to put it mildly. Tanks are awesome - they're just not for attacking cities. Just as is the case with the former cavalry. They're still kings of the battlefield though - nothing outside of stealth bombers, GDR or nukes can really stand up to modern armor. Your 'highly promoted infantry' will get steamrolled by an armor ditto if fighting in the open.

I agree that bombers are nice, though, especially if you're so far ahead technologically the opponent can't muster fighters nor AA guns.

 

[TPQ]

'Arguably' is an understatement, to put it mildly. Tanks are awesome - they're just not for attacking cities. Just as is the case with the former cavalry. They're still kings of the battlefield though - nothing outside of stealth bombers, GDR or nukes can really stand up to modern armor. Your 'highly promoted infantry' will get steamrolled by an armor ditto if fighting in the open.

I agree that bombers are nice, though, especially if you're so far ahead technologically the opponent can't muster fighters nor AA guns.

Triple terrain promoted mech inf in front, getting flanking bonuses from more mech inf either side and behind would stand up pretty well when fortified. Then, use double attack and extra range promoted rocket artillery, to finish off the modern armor.

I try to take units through from warriors and catapults, to mech inf and rocket artillery and they get very highly promoted along the way. I suppose you could go from horse right through to modern armor, but mech infs would still have numerical advantage as the aluminium you need for modern armor is finite on every map and required for a lot of things.

I do agree that tanks are good in the open though, to clear out enemy units from around cities, before letting the mech inf come in and take the city down.

Personally, I'd rather be using my aluminium for stealth bombers than modern armor. Stealths have huge range, are great in attack and defensive roles and with a couple of promotions it doesn't take many to reduce a city's defenses to nothing. Then just walk your mech inf in for the final blow.

I still think oil is best used on bombers and aluminium is best used on stealth bombers.

Tanks and modern armor have their place, but if I have to use a resource, I'd choose bombers/stealths over tanks/modern armor any day and let my highly promoted, numerous and resourceless mech infs do the dirty work.

 

[bcaiko]

I still think bombers are a better use of oil overall, but at least tanks arguably now have a place on the Civ5 battlefield.

However, I tend to go with melee plus siege from the very early game, so by the time modern rolls around, I have many highly promoted infantry and artillery, which make for a much better offensive force than tanks, especially when upgraded to mech inf and rocket artillery.

A few blitz/march/siege/triple terrain promoted mech infs can often take cities without any bombardment support.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but are you saying that because you can upgrade into Mechanized Infantry (and thus keep promotions) that they're better than Tanks now? I guess I can understand that. Still, 1 for 1, Tanks are numerically better than Mechanized Infantry now; they have the same strength and better movement.

 

[bryanw1995]

Plus tanks can move after attacking, which is the best thing about them. 5 movement + move after attack +upgradability to modern armor+ mech inf nerf to 3 move has definitely pushed newly built tanks above newly built mech infantry in my book. However, tanks involve a tradeoff with bombers, have the city attack penalty, and get no defensive bonuses. Overall I think that the tank/mech inf balance is quite good now, I'm glad that they made the change. And with the reduced ai reliance on nukes + longer late/end game tanks will actually be usefull once in a while.

 

[VoxD]

Ahem... Helicopter Gunships anybody?

Seriously... get the right social policies and buildings, and you get 3 promotions on every new chopper, so you can get +2 movement, and 2x attacks per turn. Plus those gunships can fly over mountains and ignore terrain costs, unlike tanks... so they are incredible for modern era warfare IMO. Hit two tanks, run back behind a mountain where the enemy can't retaliate. Heal. Rinse, repeat.

But yeah. I love the movement increase for the tanks too. Handy.

 

[seasnake]

This speaks to a problem in my mind, we need a modern continuation of crossbowman and a nerf to siege units when fighting other units. I think we need line like Archer -> Crossbow -> Grenadier -> Mortar -> Special Forces. These units have an effective ranged attack against non-garrisoned units but a steep penalty against cities and units in forts.

However, Siege Weapons have a penalty against units in the field but attack full strength cities and units in forts/citadels. That way you can't get by with building siege, you need a few to take cities but other units to deal with troops in the field.

 

[Larsenex]

Mech INF should require oil at the min or at least iron.

 

[bryanw1995]

Ahem... Helicopter Gunships anybody?

Seriously... get the right social policies and buildings, and you get 3 promotions on every new chopper, so you can get +2 movement, and 2x attacks per turn. Plus those gunships can fly over mountains and ignore terrain costs, unlike tanks... so they are incredible for modern era warfare IMO. Hit two tanks, run back behind a mountain where the enemy can't retaliate. Heal. Rinse, repeat.

But yeah. I love the movement increase for the tanks too. Handy.

That would be very effective against an all-tank army on a mountainous map, but the ai typically seems to do a good job at building combined arms, and helicopters don't get any terrain bonuses and are very weak against fighters/anti-air. Overally an interesting strategy in some situations however.

 

[Bezurn]

Plus tanks can move after attacking, which is the best thing about them. 5 movement + move after attack +upgradability to modern armor+ mech inf nerf to 3 move has definitely pushed newly built tanks above newly built mech infantry in my book. However, tanks involve a tradeoff with bombers, have the city attack penalty, and get no defensive bonuses. Overall I think that the tank/mech inf balance is quite good now, I'm glad that they made the change. And with the reduced ai reliance on nukes + longer late/end game tanks will actually be usefull once in a while.

Not quite as easy to pull off in the same era that tanks are available.

First of all you'll have to make a bunch of lancers / anti tank guns and won't be able to use them for front line combat as effectively as you could use horsemen / knights / cavalry.

Second they come far later than tanks. Depending on the speed you play on (I enjoy epic the most) this could be anywhere from 20-40 turns of waiting around to make your end game move.

Tanks with their movement bonuses can dominate any open terrain setting, hitting a target, and then pulling back 2-3 tiles while support infantry jump in front to prevent them from serious counter attack. With their mobility and first to the battle in the era we're talking about a game can be decided long before helicopter gunships can roll off the assembly line. I've had little trouble taking on anti-tank guns with tanks as I can decide to whittle them down with one tank, retreat deep and then finish it off with a 2nd or 3rd if it is well fortified. The best way to hunt tanks in the time frame they are available is with aircraft or other tanks.

And to the OP, tanks were always the same combat value as Mech Inf

 

[vampy420]

Mech INF should require oil at the min or at least iron.

that would be a good use of the surplus iron i tend to have shortly after rifling.

 

[vonbach]

Tanks are nice but I've always been partial to Mechanized Infantry.

 

[King_Course]

That would be very effective against an all-tank army on a mountainous map, but the ai typically seems to do a good job at building combined arms, and helicopters don't get any terrain bonuses and are very weak against fighters/anti-air. Overally an interesting strategy in some situations however.

At the same time tanks have got their due attention, it has become popular to build Lancers and take them through to Helicopter Gunships. Such a unit certainly owns the battlefield. They do what tanks do, with even more attention to offensive power. But as you say, I too have seen them go down to Artillery or fighters chasing them and they go down, however highly upgraded they are.

Then again, if you just reload whenever one of your little favourites die, then there's nothing to think about except all out offense.

A highly upgraded modern armor does things almost as well as a Lancer gunship, and it drives right through fire and flame. It's a decent tradeoff/weighing pros and cons. And a sturdy harasser looking for enemy reinfocements while your army is on the main objective. Gunships too often get caught in city fire to survive this, then again the gunship protects an army better than any other unit.

But it seems everyone is arguing from a point of view; either/or. All mechs, all gunships or all tanks. I usually go with 2 tanks (from initial horsemen) 1-2 gunships (from lancers) and 3-4 mechs and a few pieces of artillery. Thats my backbone army, it will often need anti aircraft support, and of course bombers show up too.

 

[gingerbill]

you can upgrade lancers to gunships? didnt know that . Just lancers?

tanks are very good now , i thought they were OP till i met an AI with gunships , i had to do a tactical retreat .