Why did they nerf tanks??

[The A.K.T]

Tanks are now as strong as infantry. Why the heck did they nerf it?

 

[Adjuvant]

I never used tanks for their rating, rather their speed. They consume my bomber's oil, but can quickly run in and take the weakened cities. Of course, I've always been a fan of paratroopers, as well.

 

[Kabloosh]

I never used tanks for their rating, rather their speed. They consume my bomber's oil, but can quickly run in and take the weakened cities. Of course, I've always been a fan of paratroopers, as well.

That is really all they are good for unfortunately. :/

Tanks and modern tanks need to be at least 25% stronger than infantry. Or they could give tanks a 25-30% boost when they are on offense.

 

[Adjuvant]

I don't know that I agree tanks should have attack bonus against infantry. Tanks are primarily for killing other tanks and destroying fortifications. 100 guys swarm some tanks, you're lucky to pick off a handful with the guns, and the worst thing you can do it pop out of the cupola to fire the M60... earn a couple grenades through the port hole. Battlefield strategy always includes mech infantry with tanks for this reason.

 

[Harv72b]

Combat units in general have some weird relationships, which is why combined arms strategies are so important in warfare. A tank's biggest strength in battle is its maneuver capability, which makes them ideal for flanking defenders and/or exploiting gaps in a defensive line. Right up until the last couple decades, tanks were almost invulnerable to artillery fire (now you have specific anti-tank artillery shells designed to break open in the air and release smaller munitions which home in on a tank & strike through the thinner top armor), yet an effective artillery barrage absolutely dominates infantry, while well-positioned and well-equipped infantry can tear unescorted tanks a new one. So giving them equal combat strength in the game isn't absurd.

What would make much more sense is to give a tank higher overall strength, but give infantry a bonus modifier vs. tanks which makes it even between the two (while giving artillery a negative modifier vs. tanks).

 

[Adjuvant]

Combat units in general have some weird relationships, which is why combined arms strategies are so important in warfare. A tank's biggest strength in battle is its maneuver capability, which makes them ideal for flanking defenders and/or exploiting gaps in a defensive line. Right up until the last couple decades, tanks were almost invulnerable to artillery fire

German tanks were, yes. That's reflected somewhat in their UU. Don't try this at home with anyone else's tanks.

edit: Someone probably made thousands of Eiffel Tower souveneirs with all the scrap America lost on the battlefields of Normandy.

 

[MadDjinn]

you know, there's these things called 'promotions'.

Tanks/mounted units have special ones that help them.

 

[Gali]

Now that cities are so tough especially late game I find melee used only for screening and killing units. Tanks are better at that due to mobility and every unit gets creamed fighting cities who care. Melee troops real advanatge is defensive cover allowing them to take hits better.

Add in the fact that calvary is now useful rather than a horrible piece of junk and tanks are just fine, since they'll be more promoted.

 

[ahawk]

The few times I've played multiplayer, you wouldn't believe how important tanks, even cavalry, became. Got into some nasty contests of trying to outflank and surround each other, and tanks' speed was the main factor. That was vanilla, sure, but even with less combat strength, that speed is important against a smart player.

The main problem with tanks is that, in single-player, the AI makes no great effort to envelope you.

 

[Kabloosh]

Combat units in general have some weird relationships, which is why combined arms strategies are so important in warfare. A tank's biggest strength in battle is its maneuver capability, which makes them ideal for flanking defenders and/or exploiting gaps in a defensive line. Right up until the last couple decades, tanks were almost invulnerable to artillery fire (now you have specific anti-tank artillery shells designed to break open in the air and release smaller munitions which home in on a tank & strike through the thinner top armor), yet an effective artillery barrage absolutely dominates infantry, while well-positioned and well-equipped infantry can tear unescorted tanks a new one. So giving them equal combat strength in the game isn't absurd.

What would make much more sense is to give a tank higher overall strength, but give infantry a bonus modifier vs. tanks which makes it even between the two (while giving artillery a negative modifier vs. tanks).

Yeah and all ground forces are screwed once you involve air forces. Even with SAMs you could be screwed since it all can get blown to hell by cruise missiles and stealth aircraft.

 

[smallfish]

Get some Logistics bombers and rocket artillery to back your tanks.

Spoiler :

 

[Vidszhite]

Just noticed something: tanks no longer have a penalty vs. cities. Nothing from Landships up to the GDR has a city penalty anymore, in fact. Huh. Might have to break the habit of keeping my armor away from cities now.

 

[shaglio]

Just noticed something: tanks no longer have a penalty vs. cities. Nothing from Landships up to the GDR has a city penalty anymore, in fact. Huh. Might have to break the habit of keeping my armor away from cities now.

IIRC, a lot of the units that used to get a penalty vs. cities had the penalty removed. Instead, they beefed up Cities and gave a bonus vs. cities to Seige units. But I am relying on my sketchy memory.

 

[MadDjinn]

IIRC, a lot of the units that used to get a penalty vs. cities had the penalty removed. Instead, they beefed up Cities and gave a bonus vs. cities to Seige units. But I am relying on my sketchy memory.

basically, yeah.

Also -

the only units that can take a siege promotion are your infantry type units (volley gives a bonus as well, but that's only siege units now as well).

 

[firstconsul]

you know, there's these things called 'promotions'.

Tanks/mounted units have special ones that help them.

what promotions are you speaking of?

 

[GlobularFoody]

I don't know that I agree tanks should have attack bonus against infantry. Tanks are primarily for killing other tanks and destroying fortifications. 100 guys swarm some tanks, you're lucky to pick off a handful with the guns, and the worst thing you can do it pop out of the cupola to fire the M60... earn a couple grenades through the port hole. Battlefield strategy always includes mech infantry with tanks for this reason.

Sounds like someone has played too many video games. Real tanks can shoot the main cannon like 2 miles away and would vaporize your band of 100 screaming maniacs trying to charge down the tank before they got anywhere near it. They also have machine guns that can be fired from inside the tank. Besides, CIv tank units aren't single tanks, one tank unit about 20-30 tanks or however many the Army puts in a tank battalion.

Tanks need to be better in GK. The WWII era infantry unit has 70 strength and the modern armor unit only has 100. Tanks should massacre anything that is not an armored unit and be vulnerable to aircraft.

 

[Frosty_AUT]

Just noticed something: tanks no longer have a penalty vs. cities. Nothing from Landships up to the GDR has a city penalty anymore, in fact. Huh. Might have to break the habit of keeping my armor away from cities now.

I'm finding this change rather weird. I always thought that tanks were supposed to rule the field with raw strenght and speed but suck against cities to balance it out. The game even has dedicated AT units, namely the AT gun and the chopper, to prevent armour from steamrolling everything.

Maybe I'm missing something important, but to me it seems like tanks right now are basically just very mobile infantry that can move after attacking and get no terrain bonuses. And of course, tanks also cost oil that's probably better spent on bombers.

I don't know that I agree tanks should have attack bonus against infantry. Tanks are primarily for killing other tanks and destroying fortifications. 100 guys swarm some tanks, you're lucky to pick off a handful with the guns, and the worst thing you can do it pop out of the cupola to fire the M60... earn a couple grenades through the port hole. Battlefield strategy always includes mech infantry with tanks for this reason.

No, no, no, no, no ...

Tanks get swarmed by infantry in close quarters combat. That's why tanks used to get a penalty against cities, to represent that they can't use their range advantage there whereas infantry can use the urban environment to just sneak up on tanks and attack their weak spots from close range. But out in the open? That's where tanks RULE. Out in the open, infantry without support stands no chance against a tank unless they have some sort of long-ranged AT weapon like an AT gun or heavy AT missiles like TOW or Javelins. Coincidentally, AT guns even happen to be a separate unit, so we can assume that infantry isn't equipped with long-ranged, heavy AT weaponry by default.

 

[Harv72b]

Sounds like someone has played too many video games. Real tanks can shoot the main cannon like 2 miles away and would vaporize your band of 100 screaming maniacs trying to charge down the tank before they got anywhere near it. They also have machine guns that can be fired from inside the tank. Besides, CIv tank units aren't single tanks, one tank unit about 20-30 tanks or however many the Army puts in a tank battalion.

Tanks need to be better in GK. The WWII era infantry unit has 70 strength and the modern armor unit only has 100. Tanks should massacre anything that is not an armored unit and be vulnerable to aircraft.

You're exactly 180 degrees from being correct. The projectiles fired by modern tanks' main guns are next to useless against dismounted infantry, as they are designed specifically to penetrate opposing armor. Fired against a group of charging soldiers you'd be lucky to get 3-4 kills per shot.

Besides which, modern infantry doesn't charge a tank, they set up an ambush with proper cover and concealment, wait for the tank to roll into range, and then pop it with an anti-tank missile (or in WWII, a bazooka). Dismounted infantry are the bane of tank formations, which is why modern armies mix infantry companies into the tank battalions (and vice versa); tanks kill other tanks and vehicles, infantry kills tanks, and artillery kills infantry.

 

[Darac]

Tanks sure can kill infantry... if it has a clear line of fire. In a forrest however tanks are less useful, unless you have those strange tanks from world war two designed especially for forrest fighting. Tanks need (if they don't already have) a large penalty when in forest and jungle.

 

[Calouste]

German tanks were, yes. That's reflected somewhat in their UU. Don't try this at home with anyone else's tanks.

edit: Someone probably made thousands of Eiffel Tower souveneirs with all the scrap America lost on the battlefields of Normandy.

Don't know about that last bit, but what I do know is that until oil was found in Lybia in the 1950s, their main export product was scrap metal from German and British tanks that were left behind after all the battles there.