There you go, everything you need to know about tanks from the HOI4 Meta community. Let me know what other guides and tutorials you wanna see and I will get around to doing them! (eventually) Here you can find all the HOI4 guides, tutorials and exploits: ruclips.net/video/B86xrwtrThI/видео.html
@@DankusMemecus I usally just go really expensive tanks with like 32-40 soft attack and 20 hard attack + like 90-100 reliability and their speed is like 10-11, but they are hella expensive to produce.
Because he cuts out everything that is unnecessary. I don't want to watch a 40 minute tutorial about how to design tanks with the first 5 minutes introducing the life story about the creator, the next 5 minutes explaining what the tutorial is about, the next 5 minutes showing stupid designs that stupid people make, and the rest of the video just them telling us in slow motion voice how to make tanks lol
I think its important to mention that Dankus normally plays multiplayer with mods that change a lot from the base game --- so when you watch his games don't expect to have 600+ factories and 60 tank divisions out for barb in a vanilla hoi4 single player game because its probably not even possible. Reasons why for the braindead --> In MP allied players will trade with you to get resources and boost your civ count, but in single player the allied AI doesn't care and obviously the AI economy is just weaker then a players so they will have less mils and thus require less resources from trade - so this means you'll get WAYYY less civs from trade in single player vanilla then a Dankus MP Modded game obviously. Also if you're new and don't understand, the design of the tank won't matter if you don't have fuel, supplies, air superiority (or enough anti-air) and organization in your template - as without these your tanks will either not move or get melted by the enemy, so make sure you check those boxes.
I think when the designer came out most of us experimented and wanted the “best” vehicles we could design but you and the other MP community know from experience just like RL industrialists in WW2 found it’s the balance to provide enough “just good enough” tanks to win.
The expensive recon light tank as support was nerfed hard and it gives very little stats now because its in small number via support company, if you design recon light tanks make them cheap and fast that's all
1) heavy flame tank (as any other heavy tank) would be much cheaper if you used a light turret instead of a heavy one (MUCH more expensive) 2) reliability is actually essential for tanks (at least in vanilla). 71cloak has made a comprehensive video about it. Basically, if your reliability is lower than 80-100% and tank amount is higher than 50 per div you'll loose a shit-ton of them while non-combat (attrition, out-of-supply, mountain, desert, jungle, snow, mud, swamp movement penalties, etc.) Forgot to add: heavy flame tank company has the lowest debuffs while constructing a tank variant (e.g. -65% armour instead of -85% on LFTs), that provides better stats for your divs
A heavy flame tank might give the most stats but you will still perform worse than a med/light if you're attacking a river or mountain. So honestly just knowing the terrain is the biggest take away here.
@@googane7755 This. Heavy flametank is a one-trick pony. You build them if you want to bulldoze through the Maginot Line, and that's all you ever build them for.
Sounds kinda boring, why would I need space marines? Probably when Im gay or just suck at the game, how about baiting the AI into snaking through your country while using cavalry to encirle the enemy and infantry to hold the encirclement
At 77% reliability going into Russia, you're losing nearly one out of four to attrition aren't you? .5 IC seems like it more than offsets having nearly 100% reliability.
What would be a great companion piece to this is a tank division building guide. Maybe less of just an individual build that works, because obviously context can change what that looks like, but more a buyer’s guide for how to get the most out of your tank divisions.
You should also show some other designs. the improved high velocity canon is very good and has enough soft and hard attack. you will kill enemy tanks with that
Thing is that you kill enough tanks already with the gun I showed in the video. In vanilla the tanks arent the issue imo. Tanks can always be clicked but infantry can be laststanded for weeks on end. This is for multiplayer kinda that I say this
99% reliability tank loses ~30(!) times fewer tanks than a 70% reliability tank from the attrition of any kind, which you will take! You will train, you will go through marshes, and mountains. So yes, that is the reason to go improved chassis, but just not really ahead of time as before. About small cannons and "expensive" tanks. Tanks with machine guns will lose vs tanks with small cannons because of extra SA/HA. Extra hard attack from cannons allows your TD/Tank to trade IC efficiently vs other tanks, where people "saved" IC. Edit: typos Edit2 and P.S. about Heavies and being unpiercable. I really hope you see this Dankus, because I am interested in your opinion. Have you played vs unpiercable heavies as Germany/Russia, who can mass them? Since partial piercing is not yet implemented, the unpierced tank is worth 3-4 (soft estimate, there are tests to prove it) tanks with similar stats, but which are piercable. They are expensive, sure. They attrition because of low reliability, sure. But they outtrade your tanks as hell. There is a solution to just build planes with IC you save and cas them, but still. Can you tell about your experience with HT armor builds or vs them.
The relative loss of tanks in a vacuum is not that meaningful because you lose tanks from combat as well which reliability doesn't affect as heavily (high reliability allows you to recover a very small fraction of lost equipment when winning the battle). The important part is whether the tanks lost to attrition bridge the gap in IC compared to just making the more expensive ones.
@@ruukinen If take examples from the video: 30 times less attrition. Ok, 20 times less attrition because support companies and 0.5 IC cost per tank. with tank cost of 12. I think the answer is perfectly clear. Another tank from the video will be 0.2 IC cost difference.
@@daetozhestko-q9k Yes but how much is that "20 times" more attrition going to cost you? What if it's only 0.1 IC. It's like saying casualties increased by 1000% from 10 to 100. A huge increase but a minuscule total amount anyway.
@@ruukinen I will do the math for you since you are unwilling/unable to do it yourself. you have IC cost of 11.5 and 12. Combat losses are equal in both cases and are y. the attrition losses are 20x and x respectively. 11.5*(20x+y) < 12(x+y). If this is true the IC losses of a new tank model are greater than of the low reliability old model through the campaign. which is x < y/436, which is interpretable as the cheaper older tank is better if you lose less than 1 out of the 437 lost tanks to attrition and other 436 in combat, which is not true in the absolute majority of cases.
@@daetozhestko-q9k You've made your case about this specific imaginary example. In reality the minimum attrition rate kicks in in most cases when you go above 90% reliability. Also the calculation for reliability is not as simple as you make it. 80% compared to 90% usually results in just 50% more losses to attrition than the expected 100% due to how the calculation works. I tried to make my case in the general sense since I don't know which one is worth it in the end and don't have the patience to make the calculation. I'm just pointing out the fact that it isn't as simple as 20x more tanks lost since you lose a lot of gear to combat as well.
I think going improved chasis is worth it even though cost is higher, reliability = less attrition so you will get less losses to attrition in low supply areas.
Thanks so much for this tutorial! When I’m in single player and I play nations like Germany, I usually rely on infantry and airforce because i find producing tanks to be difficult and idk when to start producing them. I know that sounds stupid, but how many factories should I have assigned and when should I start producing them?
Bro no wonder my tanks with 22 soft attack were struggling even tough i was using 40 width divisions I didnt know you could unlock improved medium cannon much earlier.
The irony of this is that in real life this was the case. As it turns out Quantity will always beat quality in terms of tanks well in that era anyways. The Allies almost always had more tanks than the Axis. And that was because they were focussing on Large production, with a single chassis taking them as far as possible. As opposed to the German tanks who on average had produced a new variation of tank every 6th tank or so. As it turns out when you are producing a new variant every 6 tanks that’s less resources that can be put into manufacturing guns and ammunition. If anything their innovative culture really stifled the German war effort more than any allied bombing campaign.
Why is maintenance company thrown in? Like it improves reliability and decrease tank loses. But you sacrifices a support company that could be support arty or rocket arty, thus increasing the 'STAT'. I am not a dumb dumb to Hoi but I would want a explanation if possible :) Tusen tack för dina fantastiska videos :))) Luv från Göteborg.
I usually just go for the best most expensive tank with really high breakthrough, max armour max everything. Usually with barb rather than go round the tanks I go through them. I make anti tank tanks into the division for max piercing and SPG tanks for the breakthrough and usually have 10 tank divisions
I will say that the improved tank for the small cannons is better just because of reliability. As Germany against the soviets, at least in vanilla, you'll lose more tanks than that little bit more you produce unless you're getting encircled. Especially as a major nation, if you're already going for a more expensive tank. As a minor, stick with the basic and you'll be fine.
I love how Dankus has to put memes every 10 seconds because he knews that most of the people watching him have the attention span of a female on tik tok
I would say reliability is really important if it goes below 80, with maintenance companies that is. But definitely not a 65 reliability tank like you've done here, if you are playing a minor you will have a hard time replacing losses by attrition.
I agree and even with Majors its important. He is arguing that reliability doesn't matter but if you care so much about a few points of cost per tank, then you should be losing your mind over having to replace a full tank just to move a tile, and that is what reliability does. I would argue that you want to try to keep your reliability as close to pefect with maintenance as possible. You should build it as though you have maxed out mainenance comps and if that means you burn some early then fine. But if you are burning tanks moving through tiles late, your design sucks.
The inserted .gifs were distracting from an otherwise very informative video. Thank you creating this great piece of instruction! (remember: "less is more" ).
@@Darcola Nah but i think it is because it has more piercing and it has good enough soft attack. But if you are purely going for soft attack then go with the howitzer.
Great guide but what about the armor and the breakthrough that comes with it which can be really substantial ( when upping the armor you up the brk automatically). I also wonder why don't we just max the breakthrough ( with the 3 slots etc.) on the tanks ( because they get a bonus to breakthrough for being tanks) and incorporate a couple SPGs in your division where u max out soft attack ( since you get a bonus to SA for SPG's) wouldn't that give a better division overall ? you can even add a TD to insure you can pierce even the expansive heavys ( with the last AT gun one TD gets you to around 160 piercing i think on the division) Keep it up !
I mean if you are doing a full focused soft attack build you can already get a 25 soft attack close support gun with the first artillery research and when you would get the improved medium cannon around that time you would also get the improved howitzer giving you 45 soft attack. Even before that if you research the 1939 artillery you get the normal howitzer already having 35 soft attack. So if you go for full soft attack I recommend getting the howitzers and not the medium cannons.
@@ruukinen they don't have to be designated as SPA, you can have a tank with a Howitzer. You acctually get less soft attack by making it a SPA since they are 3w and tanks 2w
@@ruukinen Speaking from experience they do not and still give those high values without being SPG's. Making them SPG's makes the soft attack simply only even more strong this is however not worth it because SPG's have -40% breaktrhough. You can test it out yourself.
adding more armor adds quite a lot of breaktrough so sometimes i like maxing that out as well and then have 3k breakthrough cus of doctrine xD just saying that adding armor isnt as useless as he said it is
I mean in case of anti infantry tank why would you go for armor if the main purpose of it is to quickly demolish enemy infantry by stacking soft attack. Armor with breakthrough make division stay longer in battle but why would you need this if you're trying to quickly defeat enemy infantry. Also in general penetrating armor costs less than producing these high cost armor tanks.
@@andret8423 breakthrough counters the enemy infantry defence stat so if you have a higher breakthrough than their defence you get more critical hits meaning you reinforce meme more often. It also literally only costs 1-2ic extra and makes the tank unpierceable by inf. imo it’s worth it
@@alextonev3017 Breakthrough is your defense while attacking. So it's dafance against enemy's soft or hard attack and non pierceble armor just reduces damage to your breakthrough. Tanks by themselves have much more breakthrough than infantry and beside that they give division hardness so enemy division can deal damage to your breakthrough mostly by hard attack. All of these already makes tanks great at defense while attacking so no armor needed in short term. Armor is useful at singleplayer but in multiplayer people in most of the cases will pierce you by simple tank destroyers or AT
The reason you go for the next chassis is for the extra reliability you gain with it, letting you put more armor on. Putting more armor on your tank also increased the breakthrough of your tank. So if your trying to stack a lot of breakthrough, the next chassis are absolutely worth it
I need to make a mod that disables all the designers for the sake of the AI. It just suffers the same problems that it has in Stellaris in that it cannot competently use designers.
genuine question, especially because of the coming new Italy focus tree; Should Italy even build tranks in this meta or the next one? or is it meta to just pump out decent infantry and support germanys tanks with Air and filler divisions? and if Italy builds tanks, are mediums the way to go or is it viable to make light tank divisions?
Two questions: 1. You make your tanks 40 width, but isn't the meta for Germany and Russia to make the tanks 44/45 width? 2. This is a minor point but you use the IHV2 cannon instead of the improved medium cannon. Is it worth it to pay one more IC for 3 soft attack and 30 piercing when you are most likely going to pierce anyway?
There you go, everything you need to know about tanks from the HOI4 Meta community.
Let me know what other guides and tutorials you wanna see and I will get around to doing them! (eventually)
Here you can find all the HOI4 guides, tutorials and exploits: ruclips.net/video/B86xrwtrThI/видео.html
no step back ussr tutorial
You have new order mod for this video? (Can tell because of Germany ruling everything original idea)
@@NiIqwa Vanilla
Dankus why does tommyKay not like you?
Can you play Greece and/or Spain game?
cant wait for airplanes to be too expensive and then everyone just uses strong infantry
the cycle of hoi4 dlcs
Just buy paradox DLC simulator games
@@RainedOnParade but then built cheap antitank tanks and counter the anti-infantry tank
Then next it will be artillery, then gun design, we will regress to neolithic warfare
@@DankusMemecus gun designer guide when
Ultimate Tank Guide: Soft Attack = Against Infantry, Hard Attack = Against Armored Stuff
People overcomplicate things
@@DankusMemecus true
@@DankusMemecus but thanks for the tipp with the basic chasis. 🙂
@@DankusMemecus I usally just go really expensive tanks with like 32-40 soft attack and 20 hard attack + like 90-100 reliability and their speed is like 10-11, but they are hella expensive to produce.
dankus is the only creator that can make me sit through an entire hoi4 tutorial
Because he cuts out everything that is unnecessary. I don't want to watch a 40 minute tutorial about how to design tanks with the first 5 minutes introducing the life story about the creator, the next 5 minutes explaining what the tutorial is about, the next 5 minutes showing stupid designs that stupid people make, and the rest of the video just them telling us in slow motion voice how to make tanks lol
I think its important to mention that Dankus normally plays multiplayer with mods that change a lot from the base game --- so when you watch his games don't expect to have 600+ factories and 60 tank divisions out for barb in a vanilla hoi4 single player game because its probably not even possible.
Reasons why for the braindead --> In MP allied players will trade with you to get resources and boost your civ count, but in single player the allied AI doesn't care and obviously the AI economy is just weaker then a players so they will have less mils and thus require less resources from trade - so this means you'll get WAYYY less civs from trade in single player vanilla then a Dankus MP Modded game obviously.
Also if you're new and don't understand, the design of the tank won't matter if you don't have fuel, supplies, air superiority (or enough anti-air) and organization in your template - as without these your tanks will either not move or get melted by the enemy, so make sure you check those boxes.
Yeah, a lot of these mods add more mils but less output
or just get shit inf with a ungodly amount of air
@@asherwoodrow7471bro this is absolute shit you'll just get encircled and slowly killed
I think when the designer came out most of us experimented and wanted the “best” vehicles we could design but you and the other MP community know from experience just like RL industrialists in WW2 found it’s the balance to provide enough “just good enough” tanks to win.
The expensive recon light tank as support was nerfed hard and it gives very little stats now because its in small number via support company, if you design recon light tanks make them cheap and fast that's all
I am speed
@@DankusMemecus IM FAST AS FUCK BOI
Born too late to explore the world, born too early to explore the universe, born just in time to kick gum and chew ass
1) heavy flame tank (as any other heavy tank) would be much cheaper if you used a light turret instead of a heavy one (MUCH more expensive)
2) reliability is actually essential for tanks (at least in vanilla). 71cloak has made a comprehensive video about it. Basically, if your reliability is lower than 80-100% and tank amount is higher than 50 per div you'll loose a shit-ton of them while non-combat (attrition, out-of-supply, mountain, desert, jungle, snow, mud, swamp movement penalties, etc.)
Forgot to add: heavy flame tank company has the lowest debuffs while constructing a tank variant (e.g. -65% armour instead of -85% on LFTs), that provides better stats for your divs
A heavy flame tank might give the most stats but you will still perform worse than a med/light if you're attacking a river or mountain. So honestly just knowing the terrain is the biggest take away here.
@@googane7755 This. Heavy flametank is a one-trick pony. You build them if you want to bulldoze through the Maginot Line, and that's all you ever build them for.
reliability doesnt matter
For single player just add 1 slot of medium tanks with lots of armor to inf divisions. The Ai doesn’t adapt and you’ll steamroll them
For singleplayer just take a nap on the keyboard.
Why would you want to play like that tho
Sounds kinda boring, why would I need space marines? Probably when Im gay or just suck at the game, how about baiting the AI into snaking through your country while using cavalry to encirle the enemy and infantry to hold the encirclement
@@rabniscraft1804 why is being gay part of the argumentation
@@rabniscraft1804 Neaderland or Czechoslovakia as Democratic or any that kind of "stupid" runs.
"Why would you go for medium 3 ?"
Me, an historical player who likes a chonky Panther : yes
After 7 months I finally have the courage to ask you this. Dankus, I tried this tank template it no longer work.
I believe it's 2 things.
1. The game updates
2. He even implies he doesn't use it for vanilla
Dankus casually explaining that you should not go too expensive while building a german tank
*Cries in JadTiger*
cries in MAUS
At 77% reliability going into Russia, you're losing nearly one out of four to attrition aren't you? .5 IC seems like it more than offsets having nearly 100% reliability.
this
I love how unrealistic and history-innacuarte these designs are. Paradox, you did great as always.
dankus how to tank design
What would be a great companion piece to this is a tank division building guide.
Maybe less of just an individual build that works, because obviously context can change what that looks like, but more a buyer’s guide for how to get the most out of your tank divisions.
You should also show some other designs. the improved high velocity canon is very good and has enough soft and hard attack. you will kill enemy tanks with that
Thing is that you kill enough tanks already with the gun I showed in the video. In vanilla the tanks arent the issue imo. Tanks can always be clicked but infantry can be laststanded for weeks on end. This is for multiplayer kinda that I say this
dude forgot the heavy machinegun beside the extra cannon
Now you have to make an updated version of combat width
I think the big thing is focus off of armor for multiplayer. Armor slaps in single, but easily countered in multi. Soft attack slaps in both.
What about Space Marines - what would be the best way to maximize defence without too much production cost?
You dont do space marines for defence. You do them for the armor so just put 1 battalion with a lot of armor in if you wanna do space marines.
Space Marines are normally banned in MP but they aren’t to good for defense
So the MP meta is to build a tank with fucking corroded roof sheets as armor and 3 cannons on it. Awesome.
That 60% reliability hurts my soul
Then go for the medium 2/3 and look at number go up
99% reliability tank loses ~30(!) times fewer tanks than a 70% reliability tank from the attrition of any kind, which you will take!
You will train, you will go through marshes, and mountains.
So yes, that is the reason to go improved chassis, but just not really ahead of time as before.
About small cannons and "expensive" tanks. Tanks with machine guns will lose vs tanks with small cannons because of extra SA/HA. Extra hard attack from cannons allows your TD/Tank to trade IC efficiently vs other tanks, where people "saved" IC.
Edit: typos
Edit2 and P.S. about Heavies and being unpiercable. I really hope you see this Dankus, because I am interested in your opinion. Have you played vs unpiercable heavies as Germany/Russia, who can mass them? Since partial piercing is not yet implemented, the unpierced tank is worth 3-4 (soft estimate, there are tests to prove it) tanks with similar stats, but which are piercable.
They are expensive, sure. They attrition because of low reliability, sure. But they outtrade your tanks as hell. There is a solution to just build planes with IC you save and cas them, but still. Can you tell about your experience with HT armor builds or vs them.
The relative loss of tanks in a vacuum is not that meaningful because you lose tanks from combat as well which reliability doesn't affect as heavily (high reliability allows you to recover a very small fraction of lost equipment when winning the battle). The important part is whether the tanks lost to attrition bridge the gap in IC compared to just making the more expensive ones.
@@ruukinen If take examples from the video: 30 times less attrition. Ok, 20 times less attrition because support companies and 0.5 IC cost per tank. with tank cost of 12. I think the answer is perfectly clear.
Another tank from the video will be 0.2 IC cost difference.
@@daetozhestko-q9k Yes but how much is that "20 times" more attrition going to cost you? What if it's only 0.1 IC. It's like saying casualties increased by 1000% from 10 to 100. A huge increase but a minuscule total amount anyway.
@@ruukinen I will do the math for you since you are unwilling/unable to do it yourself.
you have IC cost of 11.5 and 12. Combat losses are equal in both cases and are y.
the attrition losses are 20x and x respectively.
11.5*(20x+y) < 12(x+y). If this is true the IC losses of a new tank model are greater than of the low reliability old model through the campaign.
which is x < y/436, which is interpretable as the cheaper older tank is better if you lose less than 1 out of the 437 lost tanks to attrition and other 436 in combat, which is not true in the absolute majority of cases.
@@daetozhestko-q9k You've made your case about this specific imaginary example. In reality the minimum attrition rate kicks in in most cases when you go above 90% reliability. Also the calculation for reliability is not as simple as you make it. 80% compared to 90% usually results in just 50% more losses to attrition than the expected 100% due to how the calculation works.
I tried to make my case in the general sense since I don't know which one is worth it in the end and don't have the patience to make the calculation. I'm just pointing out the fact that it isn't as simple as 20x more tanks lost since you lose a lot of gear to combat as well.
the later tank chassis are better imo because it gives you more reliability to play with. meaning you can upgrade the engine and armour more
I think going improved chasis is worth it even though cost is higher, reliability = less attrition so you will get less losses to attrition in low supply areas.
oMg thls tutorIAal iss graet i luv it!!!
Thanks for making this tank design guide dankus it was very helpful to me as a new player.
Thanks so much for this tutorial! When I’m in single player and I play nations like Germany, I usually rely on infantry and airforce because i find producing tanks to be difficult and idk when to start producing them. I know that sounds stupid, but how many factories should I have assigned and when should I start producing them?
btw for future reference, dont worry about it i just decided to make cheap tanks and mass produce and ive got everything sorted for all production
Bro no wonder my tanks with 22 soft attack were struggling even tough i was using 40 width divisions I didnt know you could unlock improved medium cannon much earlier.
The irony of this is that in real life this was the case. As it turns out Quantity will always beat quality in terms of tanks well in that era anyways.
The Allies almost always had more tanks than the Axis. And that was because they were focussing on Large production, with a single chassis taking them as far as possible.
As opposed to the German tanks who on average had produced a new variation of tank every 6th tank or so.
As it turns out when you are producing a new variant every 6 tanks that’s less resources that can be put into manufacturing guns and ammunition.
If anything their innovative culture really stifled the German war effort more than any allied bombing campaign.
germany had its best production 1944 so any allied bombing didn´t help ther allies
Why is maintenance company thrown in? Like it improves reliability and decrease tank loses. But you sacrifices a support company that could be support arty or rocket arty, thus increasing the 'STAT'. I am not a dumb dumb to Hoi but I would want a explanation if possible :)
Tusen tack för dina fantastiska videos :)))
Luv från Göteborg.
You don´t need more than 400 soft atatck
At some point you don't need excessive soft attacks. Not sure how much, but around 300-400 you should stop
Dankus with the dream music at 11 minutes lmaoo
I usually just go for the best most expensive tank with really high breakthrough, max armour max everything. Usually with barb rather than go round the tanks I go through them. I make anti tank tanks into the division for max piercing and SPG tanks for the breakthrough and usually have 10 tank divisions
10 tanks div and you get day 1 pushed by russia
if you're going for a soft attack build why would you make the cannon your main armament instead of the howitzer?
A SPG has no reliability, its fine for support but it shouldn't be the main tank in a division
bro nah I remember having nostalgia for the first bit of the vid song I don't know why
I will say that the improved tank for the small cannons is better just because of reliability. As Germany against the soviets, at least in vanilla, you'll lose more tanks than that little bit more you produce unless you're getting encircled. Especially as a major nation, if you're already going for a more expensive tank. As a minor, stick with the basic and you'll be fine.
Don’t have a question. Just enjoy your content. Thanks dankus!
thank you i needed a tank tutorial cuz i suck at this game so much xD
The doctrin you use change the template? I mean like with MM you put more tanks and less motorized because you have more org and with SF less tanks.
The best part is when he said it's dankin time
I love how Dankus has to put memes every 10 seconds because he knews that most of the people watching him have the attention span of a female on tik tok
or a guy at a beach or community pool, or also on tik tok.
I would say reliability is really important if it goes below 80, with maintenance companies that is. But definitely not a 65 reliability tank like you've done here, if you are playing a minor you will have a hard time replacing losses by attrition.
I agree and even with Majors its important. He is arguing that reliability doesn't matter but if you care so much about a few points of cost per tank, then you should be losing your mind over having to replace a full tank just to move a tile, and that is what reliability does. I would argue that you want to try to keep your reliability as close to pefect with maintenance as possible. You should build it as though you have maxed out mainenance comps and if that means you burn some early then fine. But if you are burning tanks moving through tiles late, your design sucks.
Thank you so much for making this!
so Dankus is doing High velocidy guns on tanks the best way to beat your tank meta
The inserted .gifs were distracting from an otherwise very informative video. Thank you creating this great piece of instruction! (remember: "less is more" ).
isn't the howitzer better for soft attack? the one you get when researching 1939 artillery
yes it is
@@muremuresen3725 so why would i go for the anti-tank cannon?
@@Darcola To counter shitty AI tanks
@@foxpickaxe oh ok, thank you
@@Darcola Nah but i think it is because it has more piercing and it has good enough soft attack. But if you are purely going for soft attack then go with the howitzer.
Hi Dankus, could you do an updated one? It is two years old after all
The maintenance company II unlocks a reliability module that is a cheaper than Wet Storage I think
its free, but only gives 10% instead of 15%
Tanks Dankus for the guide.
I always pushed for 1k base soft attack in a tank division, and then made a separate Tank Destroyer
Was that cost efficient?
At this point it’s cheaper to just make really good infantry for all situation. Exp for redesigns are expensive and gamy.
The point of next level chassis with better reliability is to be unpierceable while having reliability but I don’t think this matters for multiplayer
Omg now i can be just like dankus tank russia master hearts of iron four
Amazing Dankus guide
Great guide but what about the armor and the breakthrough that comes with it which can be really substantial ( when upping the armor you up the brk automatically).
I also wonder why don't we just max the breakthrough ( with the 3 slots etc.) on the tanks ( because they get a bonus to breakthrough for being tanks) and incorporate a couple SPGs in your division where u max out soft attack ( since you get a bonus to SA for SPG's) wouldn't that give a better division overall ? you can even add a TD to insure you can pierce even the expansive heavys ( with the last AT gun one TD gets you to around 160 piercing i think on the division)
Keep it up !
The bald guy eating chips add so much to this videos thank Dankus
Lmao the random Tommy endsieg gameplay
really well explained and easy to understand and very helpful. Liked and downloaded (for extra views)
its 6 months after this video. still good,
will it take till the mechanised designer till you make a tutorial for the airwing desinger?
Exactly
@@DankusMemecus as i expected
What Crack did you give to the editor?
Is it worth marking a infantry tank with a machine gun
Bokoens games: THEY CAN"T PIERCE MY TANKS HAHAHA
Dankus: Glass Cannons
I mean if you are doing a full focused soft attack build you can already get a 25 soft attack close support gun with the first artillery research and when you would get the improved medium cannon around that time you would also get the improved howitzer giving you 45 soft attack. Even before that if you research the 1939 artillery you get the normal howitzer already having 35 soft attack. So if you go for full soft attack I recommend getting the howitzers and not the medium cannons.
The close support gun is fine but the howitzers cannot be equipped on tanks that are designated as tanks. They have to be designated as SPGs.
@@ruukinen they don't
@@ruukinen they don't have to be designated as SPA, you can have a tank with a Howitzer. You acctually get less soft attack by making it a SPA since they are 3w and tanks 2w
@@ruukinen Speaking from experience they do not and still give those high values without being SPG's. Making them SPG's makes the soft attack simply only even more strong this is however not worth it because SPG's have -40% breaktrhough. You can test it out yourself.
@@iwing3749 I did, you guys are right. Either I've been trying to put them on light tanks or an earlier patch had it that way, or I'm just dumb.
I love this editing
adding more armor adds quite a lot of breaktrough so sometimes i like maxing that out as well and then have 3k breakthrough cus of doctrine xD
just saying that adding armor isnt as useless as he said it is
I mean in case of anti infantry tank why would you go for armor if the main purpose of it is to quickly demolish enemy infantry by stacking soft attack. Armor with breakthrough make division stay longer in battle but why would you need this if you're trying to quickly defeat enemy infantry. Also in general penetrating armor costs less than producing these high cost armor tanks.
@@andret8423 breakthrough counters the enemy infantry defence stat so if you have a higher breakthrough than their defence you get more critical hits meaning you reinforce meme more often. It also literally only costs 1-2ic extra and makes the tank unpierceable by inf. imo it’s worth it
@@alextonev3017 Breakthrough is your defense while attacking. So it's dafance against enemy's soft or hard attack and non pierceble armor just reduces damage to your breakthrough. Tanks by themselves have much more breakthrough than infantry and beside that they give division hardness so enemy division can deal damage to your breakthrough mostly by hard attack. All of these already makes tanks great at defense while attacking so no armor needed in short term. Armor is useful at singleplayer but in multiplayer people in most of the cases will pierce you by simple tank destroyers or AT
The reason you go for the next chassis is for the extra reliability you gain with it, letting you put more armor on. Putting more armor on your tank also increased the breakthrough of your tank. So if your trying to stack a lot of breakthrough, the next chassis are absolutely worth it
Again, with mobile you get a tank that has 2k breakthrough on foresttiles anyhow so its not super necessary but good for the reliability
I like to make tanks with over 90 armor because if enemy can’t pen it then they lose almost all organization
Great video, but the memes in the corner are often placed exactly where we want to be looking, which isn't great for an educational video.
Yep Markoni here.
Fully agree, watching it now will definitely cut down on it.
Mr dank we want the best tank we don't want OPTIONS we don't want to THINK
If you go maintenance company 2 you also get easy maintenance making it 1 ic cheaper.
Why bogie instead of Christie for speed? It’s more expensive in the long run?
Dankus whats ur opinion on mec? Is it worth using in ur template (since you didnt use that in this vid)?
Mech is crucial for a good tank division, you’ll take terrible losses without ot
Ok, but, dankus, hear me out
50 production cost tanks are funny
Usually the editing is pretty ok with some funny bits thrown in. This was over edited and distracted from the video.
I need to make a mod that disables all the designers for the sake of the AI. It just suffers the same problems that it has in Stellaris in that it cannot competently use designers.
ty i was crap at tanks and always put max Armor on them and i ended up running outa tanks and i gave up till i saw this
Dankus what's your opinion about 300 armour superheavy tank space marine
Yes
I've seen you using rocket launchers in the newest video.
Are they worth it?
How to use them?
You dont need a tutorial to build tonks just take a tractor and cover it with aluminum plates . (glory to the bob semple)
God, now do navy cuss even after 1k hours i still dont get wtf works
dankus is heavy tanks worth it
Bro I needed this 💀💀
Me, an EaW player: man these would be perfect if I could afford them
Can you do a Tutorial for the best Infantry-Templates too ?
I usually go for breakthrough med tanks are they worth to build?
me without half of the dlcs
“That’s the general jizzst of it”
I LOVE DADY DANKUS
dankus, if i live in sweden does that make these tanks have better shtats?
+5%
Is it worth to switch motorized inf to mechanized inf?
Of course, it provides better stats and most importantly, larger hardness to your division
genuine question, especially because of the coming new Italy focus tree;
Should Italy even build tranks in this meta or the next one?
or is it meta to just pump out decent infantry and support germanys tanks with Air and filler divisions?
and if Italy builds tanks, are mediums the way to go or is it viable to make light tank divisions?
Why u dont use howitzer? Especially for gameplay against bots?
for the last support slot support AA is better than recon. recon is basicly useless other than movement speed.
One of these divisions could win an ai game
Two questions:
1. You make your tanks 40 width, but isn't the meta for Germany and Russia to make the tanks 44/45 width?
2. This is a minor point but you use the IHV2 cannon instead of the improved medium cannon. Is it worth it to pay one more IC for 3 soft attack and 30 piercing when you are most likely going to pierce anyway?
I'd argue 42 due to high forest concentration
as a german player we do 40 or 42
How Navy ?
so basically: build good tank you win ez
right?