Main battle tanks - A tanky unit that has 0 defence against planes and can be countered easily, tank destroyers, artillery, aerial units, etc etc. They can be used as a tank for artillery, but it would be better spending the resources on something else.

Armored Fighting Vehicles - I feel that apart from the health, spec ops can do everything it does and more

Combat Recon Vehicles - They are mostly used in early game to destroy infantries easily, I don't see a use for them later in the game other than scouting.

Tank Destroyers - In my opinion, this is the best armored unit, it can act as a counter for all armored units in a direct battle, good for defending in cities, and doesn't cost a lot.

It's fighting in melee in general that is the issue; its simply highly inefficient compared to other stuff.

- most ground units deal most of their damage against other ground units, so fighting ground units vs ground units you're pretty much guranteed to take lots of damage (especially when compared to artillery or aircraft vs ground units)
- because of taking so much more damage, units that are fighting in melee will have more downtime for healing
- losing units is pretty much guranteed, which means more resources go to replacing losses rather than new units compared to other units
- defender usually has more advantages then the attacker (entrenchment, terrain modifiers, simple fact that both stacks are locked in melee until death or retreat)
- extremely inflexible compared to artillery or aircraft (range of engagement being on top of the other unit is a pretty extreme downside imo)

Everything below is just my GUESS regarding why you're hearing/reading that:

I think there are different reasons for different armored units that all fall under the very general umbrella of "they're not worth it" (the general opinion you're talking about, not necessarily a fact or my personal opinion). By that, I mean that I don't think that anyone one specific reason applies to all armor.

CRVs, I think, don't feel sturdy/tough enough to justify researching them. They have Reveal Stealth; they are completely unaffected by Terrain; and they are like the only (?) non-infantry unit that doesn't require Electronics. So the only reason that I can come up with for why they are not more popular among experienced players is that they seem flimsy for a hard target. I think that perception makes it often seem like it's not worth researching them further. Honestly, I'm asking myself why I don't use them a little more right now. I do use them early when I play as North Korea (because they don't require Electronics).

I kind of like AFVs/ACVs for Western Doctrine countries under which they get faster upgrades and more HP. They are good in most terrains and have the best air defense of any armor (and better than most infantry). However, I'm guessing the reason that most people don't invest in researching and using them is that they are expensive to build and expensive to research. They cost more Rare Materials to research than a Frigate, and they cost almost as much as a Frigate to build. The value/use and versatility of a Frigate is just a lot greater, and a Frigate fills a more unique role. An AFV/ACV masy feel to experienced players like they are paying more to build/research a unit that's not doing as much for them. That's my guess on AFVs/ACVs: players consider their research and mobilization too costly for their role and value.

MBTs are expensive to build and expensive to research. They struggle both in some crucial terrains (Urban, Suburban) and some harsh terrains (Mountain, Jungle). They never get any air defense against planes, and they only ever have weak air defense against helos. They do have high HP and they hit hard against both soft and hard ground targets, but there are just so many drawbacks/penalties.

Tank Destroyers are the armored unit that I research/build the most often (in public games). I like them when I'm playing European Doctrine countries, under which they research faster, get more HP, and do a little more damage to other hard targets. They never, ever get any air defense at all - zero. And they struggle in harsh terrains. The other problem is that their primary purpose is to take out other armor, so if other good players aren't building armor... there's not a lot of reason for them. If you're playing a public map with players who think MBTs are cool, though, they can be useful.

So, there you go. Armor (as you know) can't claim ground, it's usually pretty weak against air attacks, and its expensive to build and research compared to other categories of units. Plus, heavier armor struggles in some terrains. I think those are most of the reasons experienced players don't feel like the value is worth the cost.

ADDED: Plus what Teburu said about Melee vs Melee damage. If you use them, they're going to get banged up, and most don't fly back to hospitals as early/easily as infantry units.

Ask yourself if you would rather shoot an angry bear from afar, or try to kill it with a knife.

Then ask yourself if you would like to shoot ground troops from afar with artillery and planes/missiles, or if you would like to engage them in hand-to-hand combat.

After doing the above, if you factor in that a lot people who post opinions in Discord chats and in game forums

• are just plain sloppy about what they write,
  
• are just echoing what they read that someone else wrote,
  
• are sloppy about distinguishing between typical public and alliance game opponents/strategies/tactics,
  
• are sloppy about their analysis of game mechanics (vs their luck),
  

and you should then feel like you understand why so many people write the things you read.

Too slow and can beat by Strike Fighters very easily def after day 20 with Cruise missiles. People who use Tanks stack em up and roll through a country for days. Can pick them apart and if didnt have avail air cover would just side step them. My first win I did that and could tell guy was on a 2 day journey through my occuppied territory with a huge stack. Just sidestepped him with 1 NG unit and followed him regaining territory till he came into air range. In generall Armor players are lazy imho.


Only been 1 major Tank military engagement in past 75 years IRL and that was 30 years ago (Gulf war 1). Tanks were cool till Armor piercing Rounds; they could just run (well jog) over people and cities.

In reality if Russia tried to roll Tanks into Europe they would be lit up before they hit the border via Warthogs or missiles.

Tanks / TDs - No Air Cover : Tanks do damage to Inf but aint standng in front of it. TD little inf damage / Decent against other Armor (Cheap and will build if in Mideast map)

RCV - Such a joke (a lvl 3 inf can beat it...lol) and if you have to get that close to tell exactly what units are you have bigger issues. If watch the News can tell what they are attacking with and based on first strike damage given / taken I can 90 pct guess the makeup of the unit.

AFV - Probably best unit as even inf/ armor damage and has air defense.

Amph FV - about useless given amount of ports and most occupied ports empty. Must pair with marines to conquer and between 2 units high research / building costs.

i will only use afvs and mbts. with the exception of when other people use tanks, i will make some tds, but thats about it.

Tanks stink in cities.

TDs do not.

Most of the battles I fight where I use armor are in cities.

Also TDs are air transportable sooner than tanks on the research tree.
Speed is a part of my strategy.

CRVs are OK. But as others have mentioned. HPs stink. Attack damage stinks. But, if I am pursuing an air assault strategy. CRVs & TDs are considered as a part of that strategy based on current needs.

CRVS, TDs, airborne rangers, special forces stacks work well in air assault, and fun to play.

Although technically not armor, the mobile AA does have a jack of all trades master of none aspect to it similar to CRVs and can be used for air assault.
I don't build these much though. I play public games so not many people research helicopters. If I see in Con news that a player is using helicopters though, it is considered. Although, ASFs usually fill the role for helicopters as a counter. Resources are outrageous to build them.

Melee units are like sword men in the times of gunpowder, without the advantage of not needing to reload because they still have 1 hour combat cooldown.

I feel that armor, like national guard, has it's own role outside of combat.

All armor is melee... Melee is the least preferred form of combat...BUT melee does happen.

Armor can play the vital role as the shield unit.

It's typical to have some form of armor that's protecting an artillery stack... guarding an airfield... blocking a route... or holding a city

It's not that armor isn't useful... it's just how/when/where you use it.

Personally, I love tank destroyers... It is a very select moment when I use them in combat... for the most part they're kept in reserve

In most cases:

If you are in need of armor as a shield unit, you did something wrong

@Kalrakh

I've been playing with towed artillery/tank destroyer builds in a similar way to gunship/attack helicopters... you might like it... it has its advantages.

Like @kurtvonstein I use TD primarily to hold cities... with 20+ TD you never worry about insurgents... and with air assault you can repurpose them quickly.

This is my current games day 20 No-air/navy build:


It's really very simple... but it's versatile and effective... and it's also cheap and fast

I played air assault setup a while, before they death nerfed TAs jump ability

But it consumed kind of to much supply in upkeep

its a nice setup till someone shows up with MRL and blast you away...

i tried towed ones but i was not realy happy how fast they die...

The TD really come into play against MRL...

TA do die easily... but they're produced easily as well... if they're in harms way you can fly them out and prepare for an engagement that's in your favor...
It's not too expensive to have army base 2s in every home city... 5-7 TA per day keeps your numbers up... it's an "out number" strategy after all

your probably right...i just dont liek to waste troops so instead of quantitiy i go for quality when it comes to damage dealing...

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

Buckeyechamp wrote:

kurtvonstein wrote:

Smallsword wrote:

kurtvonstein wrote:

its a nice setup till someone shows up with MRL and blast you away...

i tried towed ones but i was not realy happy how fast they die...

The TD really come into play against MRL...TA do die easily... but they're produced easily as well... if they're in harms way you can fly them out and prepare for an engagement that's in your favor...It's not too expensive to have army base 2s in every home city... 5-7 TA per day keeps your numbers up... it's an "out number" strategy after all

your probably right...i just dont liek to waste troops so instead of quantitiy i go for quality when it comes to damage dealing...

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 usually have a couple hospital cities by day 10

badly damaged units --> sent there. helps cuz i don't have to build as much units

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.