FULL BREAKDOWN On MY Tank META - HOI4 No Step Back Tank Designer Guide
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- FULL BREAKDOWN On MY Tank META - HOI4 No Step Back Tank Designer Guide
Main Channel / davefeedbackgaming
Discord! / discord
Support me on Patreon! / feedbackgaming
Follow me on Twitter: / feedbackgaming
Follow me on Twitch: / feedbackgaming
-----------------------------------
FeedbackIRL is where feedback procrastinates with his hobbies and other interests. Warning REALLY BORING or REALLY INTERESTING
Why encircle your enemies when you can mentally dominate them with PANZER VIII MAUS TANKS?
You can save a ton of production cost by making a cheap chassis first and refitting it: ruclips.net/video/skpt_alR6KA/видео.html
Dave, like you said in the video, speed is irrelevant. One other thing that makes it less useful is that the speed of a division is set to that of the slowest battalion in the template. For tank divisions, we usually use motorized (which has a speed of 12, making you locked at 12 speed at the fastest) or mechanized (which is only 8). This means that it's often pointless to have 40kmph tanks, since you'll only be able to go at the speed of the motorized in the division. Unless you were to do pure tank divisions, which is TRASH.
This doesn't work anymore. They patched it. Read pinned comment on that video
I think there's an even better way to make cost-effective armored divisions ; armor and piercing in a division are disproportionately affected by the battalions with the highest values, so you could for example make a tank destroyer design with as much armor and piercing as you'd like, while keeping the cost of the normal tank battalions low by not putting a single point of armor on them, and adding that TD battalion to your division.
In the same vein, the changes that came with the patch yesterday will probably redefine the meta again. TDs, SPGs and SPAAs all suffer from a -95% breakthrough penalty, so it's not possible anymore to use TD battalions to get tanks on the cheap with tons of breakthru. Airdropped supplies are divided by 6, so divisions consuming tons of supplies are really a liability ; heck, the supply situation is so bad in my game as communist China pushing west across the former Soviet Union, that got conquered by Superreich, to Europe that I rarely got armored divisions adequately supplied, and trying to build supply depots along the way means my game has reached the year 1957...
Also, SPGs got a soft attack bonus, so it may be worth producing them, though I suspect motorized rocket artillery is still a better choice, motorized arty if you need to wage war earlier. And if you really want the best bang for your buck, you must consider putting tons of MGs on your tanks ; your early-war medium tank with 20 soft attack costing 9.2 IC with riveted armor would have *28* soft attack for 10.8 IC if the 4 secondary modules were secondary MGs.
In the mid-late game, you must consider getting the superheavy tank ; while obscenely costly per tank, it's still cheaper than pre-NSB, and the superheavy tank battalion only requires 15 tanks IIRC per battalion, so it's cheaper than a medium tank battalion typically. But be aware that low numbers mean high relative attrition ; if you check the attrition article on HOI4's wiki, if I understood correctly, the attrition per hour/day is calculated based on the number of a type of equipment in a division, and it has a minimum value, so even tanks with 100% reliability will suffer attrition. If the equipment's reliability is above 1 - 10/N, N being the number of that equipment, the attrition is minimized. For a superheavy TD battalion, the number of vehicles was 7 per battalion, so if you got only a single battalion of that in a division, the reliability necessary to minimize attrition would be 1 - 10/7 = minus 42.85%, so you really didn't need to bother about boosting the reliability of that vehicle. Note I'm not too sure what are the vehicle numbers for superheavy battalions now.
Attrition is one of the hidden costs of the game, so I'd suggest clicking on the button right-hand side of the theater bar to check the equipment losses, whether they're caused by the enemy or are the result of attrition. Higher reliability means you lose less equipment to attrition and can recover a larger percentage of equipment after a battle, though I don't think high reliability is that important now ; I used to design tanks with 100%+ reliability, but that didn't matter because of the minimum attrition value, and my attrition losses were easily 10 times more or greater than my combat losses, though I must point out my recent campaigns had me traveling across Asia. The button for more details in the equipment losses shows which percentage of equipment can be recovered after a battle thanks to higher reliability, and it seems the formula is reliability^2/10, so for 80% reliability for example, that would mean 0.8^2/10 = 6.4% combat losses can be recovered after a battle.
If you're willing to sacrifice some soft attack, you can reduce the number of tank battalions in a division for more motorized infantry ; a division's terrain modifiers is the average of the battalion's modifiers, plus the flat bonus provided by the support companies. Tank battalions have pretty bad attack modifiers in forest, jungle, and urban terrains for example, and truly atrocious in amphibious, while motorized infantry always has attack modifiers close to 1 on every terrain, so a division's attack modifier will be closer to 1 the higher the percentage of motorized infantry battalions, though the resulting attack in the terrain of choice is normally lower if you swap out 1 tank battalion for 1 motorized infantry, unless the tank battalion has a truly low attack value. You can write that terrain-dependent attack value as the product of the division's attack modifier multiplying the division's soft attack in function of the percentage of tank battalions, and you'd generally conclude that function is generally maximized if you got extremely high percentages of tank battalions, like above 100% generally. But the upside of having more motorized infantry is that they cost much less, boost organization and provide HP to the division, so they dilute the damage taken by the division.
If the goal is just to have the bonus of not being pierced to take less damage and deorg the enemy, it may be worth making divisions with just a single tank battalion and filling the rest with motorized infantry, motorized rocket artillery and motorized regular artillery. Motorized AA is also needed in order to deal with enemy planes.
What about hyper velocity cannon?
My favorite tank from no step back is motorized rocket arty.
Yessir
I swear motorized and motorized rocket arty got buffed but it’s because tanks arnt cost effective
@@icealkion You're right, the production cost, coupled with need for more mils to be dedicated towards supply, as well as less mils being added to compensate, leads to tanks not being cost effective. This is one of the reasons I mostly play the "There Finest Bruh" (TFB) mod, which Bokoen1 and his friends use.
Fr, why would i use tanks when i can use mot art that’s cheaper and just as good against infantry, at least in single player
People forget you can have motorized divisions along side your tank to be for speed
When you're going for an expensive tank, ALWAYS go for the quick suspension, even when you're good with 4 km/hr. Otherwise you would need to increase the speed manually, by the + button, which massively hurts your reliability, so in the end of the day, you get more reliability off of going for it. The only reason you would't go for that, is when you're worried about the price. I actually tested this and having the quicker suspension is BETTER reliability wise than the torsion bar, which is the one that gives you +10 reliability.
VERY TRUE!
I just do the christee (or however you spell it) suspension
Devs should be made aware of this, because I doubt that's the way they really want it to work. Good tip until they patch it.
@@FreddyB41 it looks like a real engineer problem. To make a good suspension or to hardly improve engine, what is worse in some cases
Christie suspension?
You can buff your infantry to have rediculous breakthrough if you add both flame tank and recon tank support batalions. Make a cheap tank with radio and spam the stabilizer module; each adds 5 breakthrough.
True. Stats wouldn't be comparable to an actual tank division
I did this with just the flame tank companies as Soviets. That + green air and I rolled through them pretty much effortlessly, no dedicated tank divisions needed. Admittedly I could have made the tank I used more cost effective but I just went all in on the armor+breakthrough and gave it dozer blades for the +1 entrenchment. Division armor is calculated as 30% of the highest plus 70% of the average, so let's say you make a flame tank with 100 armor. Just by virtue of having that support company in there you are getting 30 armor minimum on an infantry division. Pretty much unkillable by other infantry that doesn't specifically spec into AT.
It works so well against the AI, since they never have piercing so your infantry divisions get the bonuses from having high armour lol
Pretty sure that's gonna be patched.
I believe the notes said that breakthrough and armor in support battalions will get a -75% modifier or something...
i view tanks alot like i view cavalry in the medieval ages and such, purely for fighting they are too expensive, but they allow you to do breaks and encirclements which makes up for the non cost effective fighting. infantry really cant do encirclements without superior numbers and firepower, but even when youre outmatched you can outmaneuver with tanks.
Cavalry was best when the enemy was already routed, they may have been used for flanking maneuvers, and were obviously good for scouting, but by far their most useful ability was to be able to destroy armies that had broken and preventing them from regrouping.
@@nevets2371 my total war strategy
@@nevets2371 a unexpected cavalry charge is devastating even against organized troops.
@@joaovilaca1436 until they have machine guns lol
@@joaovilaca1436 yes but it requires strategems, timings, and heavy coordinations which is hard in ancient time with their communication system (which also requires your officers on the ground to be competent at assesing the situations too, so they can implement your strategems and change to the situations if things goes awry or new opportunity came, growing talents like that are hard and putting them as ground officers is also a waste of manpower as they can be used somewhere else more important than coordinating stuff). So cavalries are mostly for flanking and mopping up routed enemies. Routing armies usually only requires 10-30% devastation and the rest will mostly rout unless they are crazy fanatics. The most important part of battles other than routing the enwmies is actually in the mopping part. Cause you dont want your enemies to regroup and come back to fight you again.
Currently I'm testing a medium tank build using light auto cannon which costs only steel because it's only upgraded to armor 9. (For chromiumless minors) The division can be supplemented with AA support for more piercing. It's working very well to break through infantry lines and pierce most enemy tanks while being relatively cheap in both IC and Resource. (Since it only costs steel)
you completely forgot that armor division, of any quality, take WAY less manpower casualties from combat. that alone is a worthwhil reason to invest in them, do all the real combat with tanks and only use infantry to defend and help close pockets
So the longer a war goes on the better they are
Hey Dave, I think you will be very happy when you discover the cost effectiveness of rocket launcher as the main armanent on a medium tank - it's a lot of soft attack for just 3 production cost. And you pay no additional resources for it, just steel.
What's more, increasing either Armor or Engine upgrade above 9 will make your tank cost additional resources (tungsten/chromium). So if we stick to the cost-effectiveness principle, no point upgrading them higher than lvl 9.
Close support gun is the early version equivalent. Over 300 soft attack on about a 21 width with light tanks. Terrible armour yes but if the infantry divisions don't have the equipment to pierce you it doesn't matter it's just brrrrrrr through them
Congratulations, you've remade the Stug
Lol that's all I have been making lately in the game xD no turret - big gun. Cheap as fuck
well actually the stug had the most tank kills of any german tank so I guess its hard attack was not that bad ;)
@@markusz4447 It depends a lot on what stug we are talking about here. The original design was craptacular against tanks and the late version was the only thing they could afford in the end.
My go to is 30 width infantry, 25 width mountaineers, and 32 width tank/rocket trucks. It served me well during the clone wars
Please allow me to make a case for Speed.
Yes, I know that speed isn't measureable in an intrinsic way in combat other than what you discussed, HOWEVER surely extra speed and thus the chance to overrun your opponent, is the most important stat of a tank.
Recently started playing around with the Russian speedster cavalry tanks (BT-7) in the new DLC and the rate at which you can completely overrun units is hilarious. Why worry about extra soft attack etc if you can deploy a tank division to delete the opponents reaching the tile before they can retreat? No round 2 no nothing.
Completely understand if you aren't a fan of this combat style or if the cost is too great to be meta, just making a case for SPEED AND POWAAAH!!!
I believe in speed. Poweeeeeeer!
I like making heavy tanks that can do 12 kmph for speed and have 100% reliability sure it cripples the economy by using all the tungsten and chromium, but who cares, its fun.
You only need to be slightly faster than leg infantry, and with the new weather system tanks are often going at walking speed regardless of how fast they are in ideal situations
Agreed I think its best for a mix. Maybe a battle group built for speed for large encirclements
A question i just had : why is the motorized tech tree still on small arms screen instead of folded into the tank tree? They should have moved it over and added a cargo special module given as a first tech.
high reliability also help a lot for repairs on the field with maintenance support and such, i did a simple test (1936 tank tech GER vs poland, took pure 20 light tank division and had them fight poland for a week) and when you win a fight 50%+ of tank casualties were repaired after each fight with 100 reliability. Note: you must win the fight for repairs to be calculated. Losing a fight means zero repairs at all. Didnt have enough time to test just how 80% compare to 100% for how good field repairs behave.
i rather better tanks over more cheaper tanks. With the old supply system where u could snake pretty deep and not have to worry about supply more tanks was better, but with the new system id rather stronger to make smaller encirclement's easier.
I took your cheap heavy tank advise from a previous video on the UK, found it was really useful to get tons of tank divisions out by 1939, and as I get my research I transitioned into more expensive heavy tanks by 1940/41. Kinda get that best of both worlds since I can pump out lots with low industry and get better quality when I can get more military factories. Sort of got the best of both worlds in the end.
Light One man turret: 0.5 cost 7 breakthrough
Light Three man turret: 1 cost 14 breakthrough
Honestly putting three man turret to get that sweet breakthrough is a massive steal, since it increases cost only by 0.5 . Tanks should have high breakthrough for offense afterall.
Also basic radios give +%25 breakthrough for 1 cost, combining this with three man turret you would get 26.25 at 10.4 total cost rather than 14 breakthrough at 9.2 total cost.
For comparison before the update you had light tank 2s with 36 breakthrough costing only 9 IC
I hear what your saying but all those small changes add up
@@FeedbackIRL I think what would be most effective is to basically have a deactivated-AI simulation game where you chart the rate of production for a full 15-factory line of all those different variants and how much sooner it lets you get 2-3 40-widths. A little touch of Reman's old videos and mathematical proof of what you're trying to say. Talking about how the increased production cost is all well and good, but if we can see how radios, 3-man turrets etc gives you like a 20% reduction to production or whatever, it's so much more persuasive and understandable.
@@FeedbackIRL The cost difference is little though. You could have 9 adequate tanks rather than 10 bad tanks since:
9*10,4 = 93,6 IC
10*9,2 = 92 IC
I’d say speed is more important than you make it out to be. Overrunning enemy troops is a very effective late game strategy when the enemy AI has pumped out 2k bad infantry divisions.
Like I said before: Focus your mediums on breakthrough and armor, spam cheap LSPGs with fixed turrets and the best soft attack guns you can get a hold of.
I also recently learned the hard way that cheapness isn't everything. It's also about how much potency you can stuff into a small *combat* *width* and *supply* budget.
It turns out that tank divisions are the most supply efficient way to concentrate stats on a small number of tiles/small width, as well giving more attack/breakthrough for the same amount of supplies. Yes, you can get 20 10w infantry divisions for 1 tank division, but they actually eat more supply than a single 20ish width tank division, and are easily stopped by half as many defending divisions of the same type.
I think why to go is mot. inf+mot arty+1 TD that is armor and piercing heavy. ideally 42 Combat width. the only reason why you want tanks is armor. motorized inf that have lvl 1 mech upgrade have 40% hardness and good enough breakthrough.
HOW META OF YOU
I mean putting one tank brigade in would give you a big boost in armor. The highest armor battalion provides 30% of the weighted average. That's why space marine divisions used to have one unit of heavy tanks in them.
Last time I was tinkering with tanks I found that Improved Automatic Cannon and I agree it is just dynamite. Definitely a favorite for early game light tanks. Slap that bad boy onto a BT-7 for the Soviets and woof, your neighbors will be in for a world of hurt. Red Army Blitzkrieg, just shred those infantry.
Meanwhile I've just don't close support gun and lot of machine guns on a BT-7 and lets just say brrrrrrrr
"It's not about quality, it's about cost effectiveness"
Hôtel de Brienne expert explaining to a new Minister of War the French armor doctrine, 1937, colorized.
As for tanks, i like to do a mix: i will produce a cheep pos tank with good soft and an expensive version at the same tier and produce both at 80/20 to 75/25.
Auto cannon 2 is 6.6 soft attack per production, Close assault is 6. It's close but ya, auto is better... but the best is heavy machine gun at a whopping 10 which is a lot of soft attack for the price... just not a lot overall.
Auto cannon also has far higher piercing which is good for matchups against enemy armor.
Light tanks are DEFINITELY underrated. I've been using 42 width light tanks divisions religiously and they are fucking incredible. Even in the late game. In my last playthrough, they never seemed to dip beneath a 90% victory rate in battle. Use 2 anti-air, 2 anti tank, and make up the rest of the division with mech and standard light tanks and you will steamroll the enemy. Great tanks.
Breakthrough can best be put as just offensive endurance. Technically it's a dodge stat, but when you look at a battle occurring, you're going to see the aggressor's organization and strength bars diminish slower if their breakthrough is higher, meaning they're able to endure pushing offensively for longer. What this means in the most basic sense is infantry de-org very quickly when trying to do an offensive against another infantry unit (and will very likely take some strength damage too), while a tank, under optimal fighting conditions (that is, when fighting in plains, deserts, or other similarly easy-to-maneuver-in terrain), will last a good long while in an offensive push against anyone, possibly outlasting an enemy with higher starting organization.
This is why, if you ever tried to push with pure infantry (or even infantry with some artillery slapped on), it can be a real slog, and why if an AI tries to attack you with pure infantry it generally goes very poorly for them. Offensive pushes with infantry are also just really bad for manpower compared to pushes with tanks since tank battalions use half the amount of manpower that infantry battalions do.
I know this video is a bit old by now but my main criticism of it remains. While cost efficiency is important, it's not the end all be all. For infantry, sure, as they're general purpose units where cost efficiency plays a key factor. However tanks are specialized units you don't typically build too many of, and use for very specific tasks rather than general purpose. Therefore cost efficiency isn't nearly as important as raw power to enable them to do their job, supply efficient and even manpower efficient. That last point being a crucial one.
You can't really do much about manpower efficiency in your infantry divisions. However you very much can when it comes to your tanks. Requiring less manpower means you can field more tanks, or if you don't need more than more other things like infantry divisions, planes or even ships. Also requiring less manpower means you will lose less manpower when your divisions take losses, and they will take losses as that's inevitable, especially when attacking which is what you want your tanks to be doing 95% of the time. Thus tunneling hard on cost efficiency, overemphasizing it over anything else, is simply the wrong approach.
Also, while I agree that speed isn't the end all be all for tanks, completely ditching it is a huge mistake. If you ignore speed entirely and have extremely slow tank divisions than just stick with infantry+artillery. Heck add a single SPG(tank with howitzer) to your infantry divisions for that sweet sweet armor to deny enemy infantry from piercing you, which is the main reason to go for tanks in the first place. It'll be way more cost efficient for the raw power you can bring. The whole reason to use tanks is for the speed. It doesn't have to be super speed Ferrari light tanks but it does have to be faster than infantry to actually pull off those breakthrough and encirclement maneuvers efficiently rather than allow the AI infantry to catch up and cuckold you.
Did a UK run with 12km/h speedy light/med tank divs followed by motorized inf to plug the holes, all supported by 100cargo planes and 600CAS/1-2k Fighters. War was over 3months after 1st Italy invasion mid 42. All I had to do was make attack phases and spearheads filling each air regions to make it effective. Oh and their navy was kaput, army never got Greece and was next to Moscow and Japan rendered useless, so might have helped.
My dream 1940 tank and tank division is:
Christie suspension (+10 speed means I don't need to increase the engine)
Diesel engine (Checked, the speed boost from gasoline engine doesn't work the same as Christie suspension)
Welded armour (Cast is nice, but it bumps the production cost up a bit too much)
Rocket launcher (little bit more soft attack, same price as an improved auto cannon)
Three man turret (Dat breakthrough)
Radio (For obvious reasons)
Easy maintenance (Free, and extra reliability)
Sloped armour (For obvious reasons as well)
Stabiliser (I elect to use this instead of armour skirts simply because it adds so much extra breakthrough, despite being very expensive.)
9 engine, 9 armour (Speed is at 6.6km/h for a 1940s medium tank chassis, armour is sitting at a respectable 102.3)
This tank only needs steel and sits at a manageable 24.3 production cost.
The division itself is 10 x Medium tank, 8 x Motorised infantry (Not cavalry, even though they're cheaper you get a lot more breakthrough with Motorised infantry), and 2 x Motorised Rocket Artillery (Only works if you've gone deep into mobile warfare doctrine, since the org malus to adding them is pretty steep, but the extra soft attack they give is incredible).
For support companies it's Motorised recon (Light armoured is better, but I don't like having to research armoured cars), Engineer, logistics, signal and finally Flame Support Tank (Which is just the cheapest tank possible with a flamethrower. Flame support companies give such nice bonuses to terrain attack that you don't need to care about attacking into any terrain except mountains, and even then only because the combat width means you take harsh penalties. The real kicker, though, is the +10% attack over a river, because with engineer 3 you actually get a terrain *bonus* when attacking over rivers which is very amusing. Combine with engineer trait on your general to make rivers breakthrough and encirclement points!)
I disagree that speed doesn't matter. Speed allows you to exploit breaches much more effectively.
Plus, armoured units take far fewer casualties overall
HoI4 debate between Feedback and Bitt3rSteel? Literally the 2 HoI4 creators whose advise I listen to most, so sign me up!
The speed argument is still a challenge for me. To really win you still need breakthrough and encirclement. Due to supply changes they have to be small (yeah you can air supply but that’s going to get nerfed, it absurd now). But you still need to do breakthrough and encircle because otherwise you are just grinding and playing an attrition game. Unless you are exploiting stupid AI (or playing as USSR) that’s a losing plan.
In SP I've never run into a problems making encirclements. Time has always been in my favour so I've not needed the extra speed
Something to consider for the speed argument; If you have green air you can air supply your troops behind enemy lines.
Speed needs to affect attack and defence against slower units.
Either that or it needs to increase the chance of certain tactics such as envelopment or elastic defence which could be interesting to stack with the reinforce bonus. It would be interesting to have light tanks pop in and out of combat .
Maybe paradox could add a (production cost free) module to determine combat reinforcement behaviour similar to Stellaris combat computers (ie fall-back to reserve if combat width is restricted for light tanks, or only reinforce if hardness is above 30% for tanks destroyers, maybe also one that only sends tanks when enemy org is below 50% but grants a breakthrough penalty but an attack buff)
Agreed it needs to do more
I think the major problem is the motorized and mechanized. Support Anti tank gives infantry 33-40 piercing if I’m not mistaken, which could be countered by tanks IF motorized and mechanized didn’t absolutely crash the armor value.
As far as speed is concerned (in SP only): if you really like the idea of having a fast division that can quickly capture provinces and make encirclements just make a very light 10w motorized division and make it fast as fuck. You break the line with your tank and send all of those little zerglings to take as much land as you feel comfortable.
Using this method will give you the advantage of sending the enemy frontline is disarray as they rush to stop your little fastbois while also protecting you from the devastating effect of getting your tank divisions encircled (who cares if you lose a couple of 10w motorized divisions?)
If we are talking about MP (very rare I do) 2w 30kmph making snakes everywhere is king
Its not as effective but you could also do this with Cavalry.
@@Vagabond820 True, this can work well if your industry is very lacking but considering the new dlc building trucks has become a priority even for the smallest of minors
@@zoroasper9759 agreed. But if you need to focus on supply trucks over motorized inf, it can be a good alternative with even lower cost risk. I’m now imagining building an entire army of 2w cavalry set to aggressive just waiting for a break through.
Side: it’s criminal how little bonuses cav gets from doctrines.
@@Vagabond820 Yeah cavalry really suffers in general
That said my tried and true strategy for killing the US early as canada was exactly by making a huge army of 2w cav. I wonder how it woul work out now with the new system
the way breakthrough and defense work:
if the unit has defense or breakthrough left, it has a 10% chance to get hit by an attack.
if the unit has no defense or breakthrough left, it has a 40% chance to get hit by an attack.
100 breakthrough means that any attacks up to 100 have a 10% chance of hitting and any attacks after 100 (on the same attack turn) have a 40% chance of hitting.
(though note that the actual values are 1/10 of what's displayed on the division's stats. also, an attack turn is 1 in game hour.)
Dave I believe the armor effect is the division that can't be pierced takes 50% less org damage and can make more attacks (extra breakthrough??) against the target divs, as opposed to the target divs taking 50% extra org damage.
Armor.
It halves the number of soft and hard attacks made against the division if the attacking division's piercing is less than the defending division's armor.
Higher armor than the enemy's piercing will also increase the number of unit attacks in combat and change the organization damage dice roll per attack from 1d4 to 1d6 as the unit can move around the battlefield more freely without getting pinned or damaged.
A division's armor is equal to 30% of the highest armor in the division plus 70% of the average armor in the division (or rather from testing, 70% of the combined divisions armor divided by number of battalions +1).
So you both attack more often, AND do more damage per attack.
(if the Wiki is still up to date, at least)
6:00-6:45 You're literally repeating what a 1938 German officer said, when he opposed the creation of dedicated Panzer divisions. MHV did a video on that.
im actually a speed , defense and reliability guy myself, takes a while to breakthrough but once you are through you are through and the enemy does not have time to recover
Yep, I find that in single player the AI can't deal with fast tanks. They try to redeploy to get ahead of them and just get overrun, once you get a breakthrough they never recover. The trick is to support your tanks with cav instead of infantry so they can keep pace.
I thought of it too, don't let your stockpile of old outdated tanks go to waste either! Those Light Tank I's you got at the beginning of the game could be refitted into SPAA pretty easily, or in MP you can slap a high velocity cannon on them! That's kinda what they did in real life, if I remember right the Hetzer was old Czech tank chassis that were turned into Tank Destroyers. (they were also death-traps for the crew inside, and your crappy Panzer II or T-26 TDs will be also. But hey, waste not want not!)
Nice!
I think you forgot about other very important stat, which is hardness. 60% hardness means, soft attack only go through 40% of dmg.
The other thing you can do is: go early production with cheapest tank, get conversion bonus and convert them to better one (from the same model, so you won`t loose production speed that much) - mid game.
but still, i can`t find this big advantage over the troops. The only reason i find is going tanks with country which has got low population - like italy? idk.
oil, and construction cost are to big, attrition is painfull. :(
Conversion will be patched soon
2% reinforce rate (infantry) gives you a mean time of 35 hours to reinforce.
8.9% the first tank reinforce took 14 hrs
the battle ended at 31hrs
so we will never know if the 2nd tank would have turned up before the 1st infantry, on average, at 35hrs.
speed looks good to me.
In one of the previous versions of the game speed used to be super OP your could create slow moving heavy tanks with lots of armor and breakthrough, break the Frontline and follow it up with 20km/h tank divisions that arrive at the next province before enemy division does, making crazy overruns and evaporating the whole Frontline making huge gaps and easy follow up encirclements
"Full breakdown" as the title with a german heavy tank in the thumb nail, very poor choice of words
Nerd
My strategy so far has been using a main army of 20 width pure infantry with engineers ( support arty if I’m rich ) and using 14-4’s with flame tank support, engineers, support arty and logistics. It admittedly struggles in North Africa and isn’t very fast but it’s perfectly good for Europe, Asia and North America
The most cost effective for light armor is a light SPA because you only need 36 for 1 battalion instead of 60 for light tanks making them 40% cheaper, and now you can have SPA with turrets which in my mind is a big loophole... SPA with breakthrough.
I'd like a side by side with those and regular artillery
Less equipment in the division is also less stats. They also use up 3 width so you get basically the opposite of what you want in your breakthrough divisions which is concentration of firepower.
@@FeedbackIRL a 7-2 with light SPA with close support gun is about 3 times the production cost of a 7-2 with normal artillery but require no tungsten. you can get about 15 more soft attack (with 5% bonus from manufacturer) and an average armor of around 16 which should hold against 1936 anti air and 100% reliability. with the latest update they nerfed the breakthrough
They nerfed breakthrough on tank variants, so you get a 95% debuff
Only downside is they take up 3 combat width. Though now they get SA bonuses from the arty techs too, so it might be worth it? Something to try out for sure
Omg Italy Light tank divisions
Isn't armor only important until you outnumbered the enemy piercing. After that it isn't important anymore because you get your bonus. So taking more riability is better, because only a fraction when even one enemy decision can pierce even 100 armor. This is also I like to take tanks with a lot of armor in a infantry devision so they get the juicy damage reduction against other infantry. Yeah overall your infantry cost more, but you outcompete 90% of enemy's and even taking the offensive with them is worthwhile.
Remember armor is the average of all the battlions in the division. So the final division won't have 100 armor
Speed is good for overrunning. You do not need to encircle when you are fast enough. i.e. when you have 12kmh mobile with light tanks and you defeat infantry, they can not retreat after losing and just get overrun.
I tested overuns and there hard to pull off intentionally
Agree with speed.
Big encirclement are dead now and small are not worthy.
I tested Barbarossa without tanks and without micro at all.
120 inf div. 9/1
24 mot div 9/3
800 CAS I
600 Tac I
1000 Fighter I
Attack on 22/6/1941
Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad captured in October 1941
Loses 600k
Killed 1.5mil
Hi Dave, love your content. Can you tell me the name of the mod you use to get the cool icons in the Div Designer? Or is it a vanilla setting I haven't found? Thanks!
This!
Do you mean the symbols such as the helmet for infantry? If so turn off NATO symbols in settings
@@cadzon92 what
@@duck8249 I was also wondering which mod he was using. I found it much further down among the comments. It was called "Modifier icons" by carlism gaming.
@@cadzon92 TYSM I owe you
6:15 Also in MP players will probably garrison their depot with at least 1 division
What's MP? 😩😩😩😩😩
@@FeedbackIRL It's a mental state which means "maximum pepe"
Do 7/2 with support tank scouts, since the tank speed does not matter you can put all points into armor and soft attack.
Since it is support you need almost no light tanks but get a very nice armor and breakthrough bonus.
Will be nerfed soon :(
On matter of speed, i think u can overann and enemy if somehow u can capture thr tiles enemy retreating to.
So extreeme speed can actually be more useful for small encirclement.
The problem ofc is to win the initial engagement. But assuming u could, tell the light tank to route the enemy. Gonna chechk on that thi.
In your way, i think it similar to how a grandbattle doctrin is.
I think they Changes the Piercing Thing. Its No longer always -50% but IT depends on how strong the Armor is relative top the Piercing.
More reason to make it chonk
4:24 "they were so fast that i couldnt even see it"
Mean while turbine tanks:
People forget you can have motorized divisions along side you tanks for speed
My main problem with this for singleplayer is that even if you can really decrease production cost and get loads and tanks, I dont think I have the skill/brain power to micro all of them
Then i guess better to focus on a few high quality tank divisions which you can actually micro. It's at least what i do as microing a full army of tanks is too much for me. Then should i have enough production and able to pump out alot of high quality tanks ill just battle plan for the most part. In SP that usually works perfectly fine.
With the new supply system, you're better off with several smaller tank armies that you can focus on than one big 24-div army rampaging across the map.
So, judging from the system the designer uses to pick a tank model, your early game tank meta is: A Stug.
Ludiethistoria in the stream chat alone at the start hahaha
Let me explain to you what stats means, so you can spread the knowledge. I will name my division A for armor, and I for infantry.
If division A have armor greater than division I have piecing, than division I will have reduced attack by 50%, and division A will have 50% more organization attack on division I. That makes division A 3 times stronger just on armor alone. That is the key stat on tank, armor!
The most underrated stat on division on the web is hardness. If division A have hardness of about 50% (that is what I expect for divisions with motorized infantry and armor) than total shots per hour of the division I will have 50% x hard attack and (100%-50%) x soft attack. So if I have 308 soft attack and 40 hard attack (and that is '43 version of German AI infantry div.) it will have 174 shots. If A have breakthrough of 174 or more, odds to receive damage will be 10 % of 174 shots. If A had 0 breakthrough it will be 174 shots of 40 % chance to make damage. Having more breakthrough of 174 in this circumstance will be just waste of production resources.
Bottom line is you can't build tanks for the worst possible scenario that happens once in 100 battles. You need something reliable and good in most of the times. It WW2 it was called M4 Sherman tank.
In Tier 1, Medium is in every category the best tank and TD. (By Tier 1 i mean the first one / the worst tier).
In Tier 2, Its hard to say. If you only look at armor, Heavy is the absolute winner.
But while you can get more armor on your heavies than what is feasibly to have a division template to penetrate.
They are a little bit over twice as expensive as the mediums.
It might make more sense to go for medium tanks and just get more armor than a infantry division with AT and AT support can penetrate. Mediums can not get more armor than a infantry division with 1 TD and 1 AT-support has penetration though.
Tier 3 - Super heavies are the absolute winner. But when that is said a single super heavy TD in a medium tank army gives enough penetration to penetrate maxed out Super heavies. The same counts for heavies, a single heavy TD in a medium tank army will get the penetration high enough to penetrate maxed out heavies. So in that sense mediums are the winner for tanks while super heavies are the winner for TDs at least cost wise.
From a pure cost point of view, going pure medium the entire way through makes the most sense. Once you reach tier 3 tanks and have third velocity cannon, armor becomes largely irrelevant, as a single TD in a division at this point will give you enough penetration to penetrate everything. But considering the advanced AT gun (which gives you the third velocity cannon) is the very last tech in the line. That means Tier 2 heavies if rushed can run around for a long time being almost impossible to penetrate. But its still a open question as you can build twice as many Medium tanks.
I have not tried yet to see if it is possible as any nation (Maybe it is as imperial/Tsar Russia) to rush Super heavies. If you do not count the 20% off the Imperial Russians get to super heavies I think it would make the most sense to do cheap medium tanks (or cheap heavies, to save research) with a single Super heavy TD (The super heavy tech gets its own gun without any other tech needed). With the 20% the Imperial Russians get I think going as cheap as possible Super heavies would make the most sense.
Personally when i design tanks in this. I design the tank and make the division I look at these 3 things:
1. There is one thing it absolutely needs to be able to stay armored against. Infantry with a AT battalion and a AT support company - Here it does not matter if i make a cheap tank design and division or not - it needs to beat this divisions penetration.
2. If I make a medium expensive tank design and division it needs to be able to beat the penetration of a infantry division with a TD and a AT support company.
3. If i make a expensive Tank design and division it needs to be able to penetrate the highest possible armor level in its tier. While still be armored enough to beat 2nd point.
When it comes to SPGs. I just do not think they are worth it. The Heavy howitzer you get in the final artillery tech seems good, but that is so late into the game that its just not worth it. Now to be fair I have not checked out the rocket one since patch/expansion.
But at the end of the day it does not matter how good your tank divisions are if you do not have enough air power to at least contest the skies. Winning the skies is more important than anything else.
I sadly have 1964,2 hours in this game, so i know a thing or two about it xD.
steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197962893724/
Tested it out (Only in SP so far), you can only rush Super heavies as Hungary and New Zealand. I choose Hungary, because then I could form Austria-Hungary and not be completely weak. I went straight for the 100% increase bonus to tank followed by the -2 year research bonus. I had Super Heavies tech by June 1940. By 1941 I had already built two 22 width, with 6 super heavies and 5 mechanized - And they worked, but i was not 100 happy with them so I quickly made them into two 42 width. Now they worked as a charm. Only problem was every time I was fighting and the enemy had air superiority, I lost 100 upon 100's of super heavies to CAS.... Not FUN!. So my complete lack of air in order to make super heavies meant i could not use them right. So in SP i would not recommend rushing for super heavies (its also a lot of waiting, doing nothing). But in MP since Hungary pretty much just needs to only make tank divisions anyway I do think it could work out (I also guess you could license it out to the rest of the Axis, which would mean they have invincible tanks (except against CAS xD)). The only problem would be resources (As you do not form Austro-Hungary in MP (unless you play with state transfer mod and you give Austria back). The one i designed cost; 100 steel, 100 chrome, 125 tungsten from 25 factories on it.
(On forums and RUclips i heard that, 25 width and 30 width should be the best, which in my head makes no sense - for a tank Division there are only 4 types of terrain that matters; Desert (90+45), Plains (90+45), Forest (84+42) and Hills (80+40) (Also Urban but they are so rare, while they often have a supply storage, I find its better to try and incircle and conquer them). Two of them have a optimal division width of 22,5 and 45, one has a optimal of 20 and 40 and the last one has a optimal division of 21 and 42. Personally i think the optimal is 20 and 42 - 20 works within all of the important terrain types but does not fill them out completely, 42 works very well with 3 of the important terrain types leaving only 3width in two of them unused and 0 width unused in the last one. But works poorly with Hills, but its an easy fix, having a three-four 25 width divisions can always fix 99% of width lost from hills if there is a 42 width division in there).
What mod are you using that puts those fancy icons in the stats?
you never addressed the main advantage to speedy tanks that you are very often racing to take a province before the enemy can get divisions back into it which is entirely up to speed
Well i think speed still matters,but its much more specific now. Having that 12kph to make that nice little pockets is still worth it. But it depends. If you fight the soviets after 40, it might be so packed at the front lines that light armored tanks just suffer too much. SO what i do with the light tanks playing Germany is i only make up to 6 divisions of them and keep the basic design more or less for the time being. After i replaced all Panzer I and have a little reserve of Panzer II i switch to a beefy design, and upgrade the existing ones, but with less factories. While i focus on bigger tanks on a new line. More Divisions are useless since mostly you cant supply them in a tight area, and the upgrades keep them relevant for quite some time.
What i also like are is my Panzergrenadier setup. 6 inf + 3 basic heavy SPA (21 width). You need only 72 of these per division and an early variant only needs steel if you dont take the beefy armor! They are basically impenetrable in the first 3-4 years against AI. They are so beefy that even with almost no org nothing can harm them. Kein Mensch, kein Tier, es ist ein Panzergrenadier! :D
So having these two types of armor gives me time to wait for the advanced medium tech before i even think to produce mediums. Since you cant upgrade between chassis types it matters where you spent your valuable industry. You need to keep in mind that division stats are paperstats. They only apply like that if all vehicles in your devision have the latest design. So mixing with outdated metal might be not so satisfatory.
You're always gonna be mixing designs your not gonna use the same design the entire game
@@FeedbackIRL Nope. You can stay true to a chassis for a specific devision and upgrade that chassis the whole game. Its worth to consider not changing to a better chassis if production numbers matter more and if the tank does its job. The efficiency growth on a new line and all that plays a role. I actually prefer it playing with the improved medium to modern tanks. And that becomes an entire new division.
Its a shame, but the vanilla game is too short to play tank manufacturer tycoon... :D
Enjoy your 1936 tanks in 1945 bud
@@FeedbackIRL The improved medium is the 1940. It lasts well for a few years and you can easily skip the 1943 medium and go for the modern tank chassis directly. Of course reserving a research slot early and take a little time ahead penalty. :)
background music vibing
23:05 People are always mad and salty xD It's the flavor of the internet
i used lights with autocanons.. conquer the world as italy xD... but i used 3 mans turret.. and diesel
You can add duplicate special modules on the tanks (except for sloped armor and radios). So you can pile on extra ammo capacity for no production cost increase breakthrough bonus
So, FeedbackGaming, there is one way you could improve on this, cheaply, though it may not be worth it in terms of research. But a division calculates it's armor by 30% of the highest armor brigade in the division, then the remaining 70% is the average armor of the rest of the division.
So, you could make one brigade a big chongus tank, that literally sucks at everything else, but has a shit load of armor, and put a single brigade of it in your tank division, and that should give you a fairly decent boost to armor.
This is only really useful for your earlier divisions, because your later divisions have quite a bit of armor, no complaints there!
I tried this with the machine gun tank. It kinda works but it lacks soft attack so it takes ages to breakthrough
if ur not using dedicated tank battalions just put 1 tank on the 7,2 if its just at 4kmh
That's my tactic and these STUrmGeschütz-Supported infantry divisions wreck everything.
Never really played competitive MP, but i think that the tank designer can offer some interesting scenarios there in very specific situations where someone might make high armoured low power tanks to act as a mobile fort or shield to take the brunt of their armoured force, whilst other more balanced tanks would flank or help diminish their numbers. Talking strictly armor v armor. Whats more, the other guy might realise that his budget tanks cannot compete against that tactic, so he has to create a tank destroyer in order to deal damage and so begins this game of one-upsmanship of ever-improving tank designs until someone runs out of resources to go further.
Alas, as far as ive seen mp games are pretty meta, you build a soft attack tank, micro it, and try to encircle their tanks if possible and there is a fair chance that the other guy will have the same idea, yada yada, game over.
My problem with the improved automatic cannon is that you get it in 1940 with AA 2s, and by then you have most likely taken out most of Europe and so can afford a more expensive tank
Kinda just want my panther tank which is relatively cost effective if you look at the good medium tanks in the DLC
in the captions it says heart attack
One problem with your design: The improved automatic cannon is a 1940 tech. You'll have to make do with either the support gun or the basic autocannon for an early-game design.
True
Yknow, ever since experimenting with nsb tank designer
I usually just default to light tanks for most of the game with good stats while slowly putting at on my army so I won't get smacked by ai tanks. Then if a game gets to late game, I'll switch to modern tanks
Also had an Italy game where I ahd to carry German ai... Then Switzerland joins in so we basically have Europe locked down except for this pocket at the maginot and Swiss mountains since I can breakthrough those units... They're majority Swiss and supplied to..
Ima rp as the germans and put full armor with 4km/h speed, Sloped armor, stabiliser,radio and wet ammo storage. And of course biggest cannon avaible
0:46 "Am I getting Bang for my buck?"
Does my 42 width mech and motor-AT with base 1200 defense and 500+ (no doctrine) for 8k costs before savings sound good?
Could be
As the Soviet union under Stalin I usually try to set up a line of level 10 forts on the border which works spectacularly well at hold back the Germans (with them having over 430 divs sometimes)
Though I found out the hard way that Vichy France likes to naval invade (: so that was a lost ironman save.
I generally agree with you Dave. But is it SO much fun to run my Speed Buggy tanks all over the countryside vroom vroom
I tried expensive tanks and just couldn't produce enough lol
Which, if any, support devisions should i add to a template tho? I can't figure it out, is it "good" to add Radio, Engineers etc, as soon as i can or there's some hidden stuff to consider and only do it later?
Are 40w (Or should I say 2X combat width) still preferable to the smaller size? Because you'll actually be able to do the 4x damage since you go over the defense and when defending you do more damage in return
Larger sizes for stats. Smaller sizes for less combat width penalties
如果你只是需要攻擊，你甚至不需要坦克，走向軟攻擊的高峰就可以了
I was under the impression that 7/2 hasnt been good since man the guns. Was I wrong?
Yes
Can someone explain why he goes for this high armor against AI, especially for his endgame tank build? Imho you only need higher armor than the average Inf division you don't need 140 armor. Sure more does a bit since they changed how pierce works but I am unsure if its great going for extremely high armor values.
Breakthrough
Hi, I only want to say that my second tank model designed by myself was 0% reliability.
AKA a fort
@@FeedbackIRL A fort would have 0 speed. 0 reliability makes it a trash can. IRL, german tanks had something like 30-50 % reliability, while the soviets had it worse.
I think you got possessed by Tommy Cooper at about 1:27.
Tanks are about breakthrough and piercing.
If you can create a hole, with your slow, unreliable, cheap ass tanks, breakthrough tanks divisions, then you can move in 12kph motorized divisions.
if you need soft attack, its called artillery. If you need piercing for defense, its called anti-tank guns. If you need these to go fast, then add trucks.
The idea of self propelled artillery is a niche luxury, as is spaa and tank destroyers. I actually prefer improved small cannons for their peirce and cheapness on my regular cheap ass tanks.
i like the idea that many builds would be viable with options to counter other builds
What’s the advantage of designating a tank with a howitzer as spa over a regular tank? It’s 1 extra combat width and you loose a lot of hardness. I can’t see an advantage for doing it?
You get individual bonuses for SPG SA (same with TD and piercing/HA)
More soft attack
Its a LOT Cheaper, a tank battalion asks for 60 vehicles, a TD battalion only asks 24. That, while giving practically the same stats.
what mod is that showing ther icons next to all the stats in the designer?
When I tried a Soviet game, I made heavies with around 55-60% reliability, and I didn't really run into many issues with it, so if you have good industry, having lower reliability probably isn't that bad for a considerably better tank if you are in single player
Love ya dave, cheers for all the tips!
Just given the base piercing values of AT guns, it's very hard to design a tank template that won't be pierced unless you're going for very expensive heavy tanks. This means that it's pretty much a waste in production cost to upgrade the armor at all, since they'll just get pierced anyway. Just try to maximize the breakthrough and attack.
All my videos are for SP not MP
@@FeedbackIRL even in single player, I don't really know if it's worth it since after the early game the AI seems to like using AT now. Probably just depends on the situation. The video still did a good job of explaining how to make cost efficient tanks, I agree with almost everything else.
Just gotta have more armour then support AT
@@FeedbackIRL true. I haven't done the math yet so I'm not sure what the breakpoint would be for the templates the AI uses but it's probably not that hard to reach in sp. It's weird for me because my brain always wants to think in mp terms when you really don't need to.
I just love how Dave has a cat🥰
I'm curious, what is your thoughts on Heavy tanks with the release of this DLC? Are mediums preferable?
Helpful thanks
Glad it helped
Pretty dumb that they haven't added customizable half-tracks yet so you can get super speed half tracks to backup your super speed tanks.
btw, if you're thinking of making cheap fast tanks to follow up your breakthoughs, theres a better alternative. Motorised/mechanised, you can't go faster than it anyway if you want org, it's cheaper than any tank design so you loose less if your encirclement gets cut off, and you can put in motorised arty/rocket to improve your soft attack so you can push out of the way any backliners blocking your push. plus with them being so fucking cheap you can afford to just flood any gap with them, making the whole situation an abolute pain for any enemy player to the point they may well just cut their losses and retreat back to somewhere they think they can hold better.
Mech stats are rubbish. Unless you make them cheaper
@@FeedbackIRL spoken like a man who hasn't used mechanised. That hardness negates a lot more soft attack damage than you might think, gives them a lot of staying power compared to normal infantry. The cost isn't great, and for followup divisions, yea I tend to use motorised since I'm building a load of it anyway for my logistics. But mechanised + arty, with an emphasis on the arty, honestly works as a cheaper alternative to tanks. I've used it as the Soviets and Britain so far (the latter having the bulk of my army being these divisions) and it just works. You're often not getting your armour bonus against players, at least the smart ones using AA, but it doesn't matter, most line holder divisions don't have enough hard attack to worry about and the reduction in soft attack combined with your own absurd soft attack allows you to punch through infantry like they arn't there. Then there's the fact that these bad boys are cheaper than tanks, so you can have more of em, and push across a wide area so it's hard to counter you with specialised AT divisions.
I used mech every single game.
@@FeedbackIRL and? that doesn't refute anything I've said. Mech good, maybe not a complete replacement for motorised, but good.
Throw me a DM. On discord let's have a voice chat
Just FYI, breakthrough that is higher than the enemy attack is WASTED. Imagine the enemy had 200 soft attack and no hard attack, your tank division is 50% hardness and has 500 breakthrough. In that case, the enemy has 100 attack against you, which means 400 breakthrough is useless.
That's true for a one-on-one, yes.
And what I initially thought best, too.
However, I then wondered what happens if your ~20 width tank division tried to overpower 4x 20 width infantry on plains.
Would, in that case, they ALL do their attack to you, and thus it would in practice actually be a good thing to have pretty high breakthrough?
I guess I'll have to go test it once I get the DLC and time, lol
It's always good to have more breakthrough than you need. Negative terrain modifiers for tanks are painfully high. That way you can mitigate for those losses
@@FeedbackIRL
It's better to prioritize soft attack over breakthrough though, right?
Like, yeah, breakthrough is very important. BUT tanks already have very high breakthrough, so you don't have to pay attention to it as much, since it'll already be plenty.
Like, if you could have a tank division with 100 soft attack and 500 breakthrough, or a division with 300 soft attack and 300 breakthrough, then the latter one would be better, right? 🤔
From now on I'll call my cheap Tanks D-34 in homage to Dave
RIP tank design creativity
You wanna put on your army helmet role play. DON'T let me stop you!
@@FeedbackIRL Phew! I thought i would have to take of my German tank commander uniform off for a second