Tank Centric Build

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • playbabe wrote:

      the whole melee built need to be overhaul
      not just tank

      but adding range to them is fundamentally wrong
      'if melee is bad, make them not melee' no! we ask for a fix!
      There are a couple of things I'd say about that.

      First, tanks are ranged units in reality, so giving them this ability makes sense (to me, at least). It allows the player to use them in a role which they actually fulfill in real warfare, which I think is good for the game.

      Second, mortar infantry has range. It bothers me not a little that infantry can out-range tanks and deal damage to them without the tanks being able to shoot back. I think this needs addressing one way or another.
    • Giving Tanks range would only make them to overexpensive, bad artilleries

      Second, who takes mortar infrantry serious outside of 4x (apocalyse) maps, where they can help you to raid sleeping victims?


      Are tanks even that great in real life?
      If you would assume, both sides have the same technological access and you are not invading countries who are far inferior to you like some countries have a habit of doing.
      I believe there is a reason why in some deserts there are thousands of tanks catching rust, beside braindead waste of money.
    • We might review the history of tanks... why they were developed... why they continued...

      Forgive me, I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible so that we can relate this back to the game.

      The early tanks were designed to:
      -Shield troops advancing on the frontline
      -Traverse difficult terrain.
      -Breach entrenched positions


      Post WW1 tanks maintained these principle design goals.
      What changed was how the front advanced.
      Whereas infantry used to gain ground to advance the artillery positions, tanks became an all-in-one frontline artillery.
      In other words, before tanks artillery was always behind the line, with tanks artillery could be used as the frontline.




      In game tanks:
      -High HP (shield troops)

      That's kind of the only essential tank attribute they have.



      Tanks in the game would be more tank-like if they had:
      -Less negative terrain stats
      -Ignored entrenchment bonuses
      -Ranged fire (20)
    • Somehow google tells me, that tanks in the real world are like tanks in CON, countries still have them because they look impressive and demonstrate power, but in real combat they lack more and more relevance:
      hotcars.com/tanks-struggling-remain-relevant-on-battlefield/

      They still get used, often in different roles then in the old times, but they got overall down scaled in quite some numbers


      How ever wars like in Afghanistan hardly fit the criterium of battle between opponents with the same technological prowess.
      I wonder how usefull tanks would be against a country with as many drones as the US of A have.
    • @Kalrakh

      The last line of that article: "In summary, there are many challenges facing tanks, and while they are likely to remain relevant for some time to come, they need to adapt and evolve."


      I don't want to pontificate on the merits of tanks... But I think as long as there is a war fought on land there will be a tank on the field.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Smallsword ().

    • CON is not about today, though about the future ;)


      WalterChang wrote:

      I am no expert.

      The most recent use of tanks that I can remember seeing on the news was in northern Syria, when the Turkish army used them to bombard the city of (I think) Idlib from the surrounding hills. They used them in effect as extra artillery. You can't use tanks like this in CoN, and I think you probably should be able to.

      How would that make tanks better? Why should people go for a tank, if they could go for Mobile Artillery instead?

      A range of 20 is still pretty much nothing, even more they will like infantry not be able to use aggressive stance.

      Also if you give tanks range, you need to give TDs range too, or they will turn useless in their job to counter tanks
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      How would that make tanks better? Why should people go for a tank, if they could go for Mobile Artillery instead?

      A range of 20 is still pretty much nothing, even more they will like infantry not be able to use aggressive stance.

      Also if you give tanks range, you need to give TDs range too, or they will turn useless in their job to counter tanks
      Yes, you'd need to give TDs the same range. I think that's fine.

      The difference between Tanks and Mobile artillery would be that MBTs have an attack damage of 8/9 at level 1, and they have 45 HP; MA have 3.5/4 damage and 24 HP.
      MAs would still have the (not inconsiderable) advantage of 65 range vs 20.

      Oh, and mobile artillery requires a L3 army base, whereas tanks only require L2. Tanks require more Components and Electronics, but not any Supply to build.

      And anyway, I'm not trying to make a suggestion that puts one unit into a position where another unit is no longer required. Ideally, you'd want the game balanced so that it's advantageous to build both units to support each other.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by WalterChang ().

    • There's a conversation to be had about where ranged fire could be used at all... for ex. not in cities and forest/jungle.
      But that's another thread.

      It's true that if tanks got a ranged fire attack other armor (TD) would also need it to maintain consistency.

      This seems like more work for the Devs (not that I would know)...

      Perhaps the easier and more immediate update would be to focus on the other two points I made earlier (forget about the ranged fire):

      -Less negative terrain stats
      -Ignore entrenchment bonuses
    • How can they be able to ignore entrechment? Tanks are strong and drive through walls of regular buildings, but hardly through walls of fortified bunker. Or even some bunker high up in the mountains.

      Specs ignore bunkers because they can enter them by food, Elite Attack Chopper and Bombers have bunker bunker busting missiles/bombs, not sure how reasonable such weaponry for tanks would be
      Maybe an option to switch to bunker busting mode, which will make them ignore entrenchment but lower their attack power a little bit?

      I'm not even sure, that I like, that Elite choppers are able to ignore entrenchment.
    • KFGauss wrote:

      WalterChang wrote:

      First, tanks are ranged units in reality,
      Walter - I have to admit that this gave me a little chuckle, because ... So is any grunt with a rifle and some ammo; or any grunt with a decent throwing arm and a hand grenade, or a neolithic hunter with an atlatl spear, or an archer with a bow, or . . .
      Think about it for a minute.
      You're such a bloody pedant! Alright! I'll rephrase.

      Tanks can be used for ranged bombardment. So can infantry, if they have the right kit (mortars). The latter is reflected in the gameplay; the former isn't. I think the game would be better if this were addressed.

      Is that better?
    • WalterChang wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      WalterChang wrote:

      First, tanks are ranged units in reality,
      Walter - I have to admit that this gave me a little chuckle, because ... So is any grunt with a rifle and some ammo; or any grunt with a decent throwing arm and a hand grenade, or a neolithic hunter with an atlatl spear, or an archer with a bow, or . . .Think about it for a minute.
      You're such a bloody pedant! Alright! I'll rephrase.
      Tanks can be used for ranged bombardment. So can infantry, if they have the right kit (mortars). The latter is reflected in the gameplay; the former isn't. I think the game would be better if this were addressed.

      Is that better?
      Not so much, but we can leave that for another day. - Not looking for debate, just a couple of chuckles.
    • They're too expensive.

      The other units to consider buying are aircraft and naval ships.

      Both are a way better value. Naval units can kill enemy sea targets, come with radar and sonar, can protect cities from naval invasion and bombard cities. They are also very fast moving. Similar prices.

      Aircraft, strike in particular, you get two of those for the price of one mbt. (Approx) And strike can be used on the front lines minutes after they are built. Tanks will take hours if not days to actually do something useful.

      The costs of the entire armor tech tree should just be cut in half to mobilize. Even at a similar price to strike fighters it's a close comparison but fighters can still make a big diff much faster.

      Another option would be to reduce the cost of the mobile aa, that thing is 1000 supply and 1400 components...wtf.
    • @Tumbler

      They are expensive and there are better values on the mobilize list, for sure.

      I think we're trying to figure out what would need to change with tanks to make them worth building at any cost, current or otherwise.

      The thread at the moment is less "why would you build a tank when you could build a strike fighter?" and more "why would you build a tank?"


      But they are expensive... noted.

      If they were cheaper they would be more viable, surely.
    • Tanks are far less transportable in the game... not until T3 can you use an airlift.

      I think a T2 ability to use airlift is far more reasonable.




      The other thought I had was in regards to healing such a large HP.
      What if tanks were like attack subs in how their HP is cut in half given the terrain/depth?

      If tanks didn't have a terrain stat penalty in cities and forest/jungle but instead their HP was halved... this would keep with the mentality that they are more vulnerable in those situations... but also make healing tanks in city hospitals much faster....just a thought.