Armored Units: What’s wrong with them?

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

    • Fusion7857 wrote:

      I’ve seen numerous posts on this forum mentioning or talking about how armored units aren’t used by more experienced players. However, I have yet to see a post outlining specifically why they or others don’t do so. What are the drawbacks/advantages to armored units that you have observed? It may simply be that there is a different strategy used in non-public games against experienced opponents, but I would love to hear your thoughts.
      The problem is resource management. Going for Armor from the start of game that means you have to sacrifice the tech and production of Air or Navy. May be both. So I guess more experienced players want to secure that fact and they don't go for all out armor at the start lvl of a new game. But again I am not too experienced player. Still just trying to share my own view. :)
      Have fun, nothing personal.

    • you got that right...a good player has to keep an eye on the economics. Lets face it this game is hidden econmice game.

      I attack you with 1 tank which is 2000 components und you lose 1 inf which is 200 components.
      Question is how many troops and inlying resources do you have and how fast can you turn static resources (what you have available) into liquid resources - troops that are able to fight.
      We both make 1000 components a day...I want to beat you so you dont make any more components.

      So the question is, how effcient can i use my components against yours...Best is i dont lose any...maybe even i get some from you by taking your cities.

      In the End i want to take all of your liquid resources from you...then its game over for you and i win. You are bankrupt.
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.

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

    • KFGauss wrote:

      kurtvonstein wrote:

      i always see player with a couple of hosptals...thats the wrong apporach...have one and make is a good one...
      Well, maybe the suggestion is to have a good hospital reasonably close each important combat zone.
      On the other hand, having two hospitals in close-together home cities = kurtvonstein will add you to his attack-that-guy-soon list.
      yeah i agree thats a good idea
      Україна
      Україна

      "The future is not written" - Anna Jija

    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      It amazes me how people just produce and lose troops. I try my best to never lose units. so after day 20 when I have 60+ units and they have 12 units its really not a contest at that point ;)
      I agree with you all but Buck sums it up for me . I try to not lose any units. But I know it's where I differ from everyone else because I really use up my air units even though it is a waste of resources . I just can't help it, it's the way I play. I guess I need a "air abusers anonymous ".
      "Retreat hell! We're not retreating ..we're just advancing in a different direction." General Oliver Smith USMC

    • bobqz wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      It amazes me how people just produce and lose troops. I try my best to never lose units. so after day 20 when I have 60+ units and they have 12 units its really not a contest at that point ;)
      I agree with you all but Buck sums it up for me . I try to not lose any units. But I know it's where I differ from everyone else because I really use up my air units even though it is a waste of resources . I just can't help it, it's the way I play. I guess I need a "air abusers anonymous"
      Dont lose the planes. If have 1 ASF / 4 SF the ASF takes 50 pct of damage. When get to 50 pct fly back to central Hospital and bring in fresh ASF to absorb damage. Watch SF as with 4 if get near 75 pct health risk a loss. Bring in 1 or 2 fresh planes and send beat up home to hospital. A level 2 - 3 hosp will recharge a stack of planes pretty fast.

      Rinse and repeat.
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp

    • I'm just finishing up a game, and I had a realization that reminded me of this thread.

      I'm playing as Ukraine (because of the current real world situation, I felt like they could use a win), and it occured to me just a few days before the end of the game that I never researched or built a single armored unit in this game. Now, this is not the first game where I haven't done it, but this time was a little surprising to me because in the past, it has always been a conscious decision.

      I tend to base my unit selection on the strengths of the doctrine and the geography of my area. So, if I'm playing as a nation like the Philippines (Western Doctrine, island nation, jungle/mountain-heavy region), I'm probably not going to make MBTs. In the case of the current Ukraine game, though, I'm playing as an Eastern Doctrine nation and in a region with immediate access to a lot of Open Ground, both elements that are very conducive to the use of MBTs. As the game progressed, though, building them (or any armored unit) just never became a priority. A situation never arose in which I needed them, or even felt like it would be better if I had them.

      So, I think when you combine that "lack of necessity" with the relatively high cost of researching and mobilizing them, you eventually end up with the general attitude among experienced players that "they're just not worth it".

    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      Recons saved my ass, when I got ganged up by 3 nations early on in a solo game, but doubtfull I will ever spend resources to research them further.
      No doubt. I like early-game CRVs when playing as North Korea.
      i feel like anyone who plays north korea but DOESN'T research nukes should be ashamed of themselves
      Україна
      Україна

      "The future is not written" - Anna Jija

    • Anna Jija wrote:

      PerigeeNil wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      Recons saved my ass, when I got ganged up by 3 nations early on in a solo game, but doubtfull I will ever spend resources to research them further.
      No doubt. I like early-game CRVs when playing as North Korea.
      i feel like anyone who plays north korea but DOESN'T research nukes should be ashamed of themselves
      Lol, when you start as North Korea in a regular game of WWIII without gold, Nukes can be a LONG way away.

    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Anna Jija wrote:

      PerigeeNil wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      Recons saved my ass, when I got ganged up by 3 nations early on in a solo game, but doubtfull I will ever spend resources to research them further.
      No doubt. I like early-game CRVs when playing as North Korea.
      i feel like anyone who plays north korea but DOESN'T research nukes should be ashamed of themselves
      Lol, when you start as North Korea in a regular game of WWIII without gold, Nukes can be a LONG way away.
      ik tho, having only 4 citys is a major obstacle (not enough resource/mp production)
      Україна
      Україна

      "The future is not written" - Anna Jija