Armored hate

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

    • MattBooth25 wrote:

      someone had used the term pro
      I wondered what is your connotation for the term (as there are no true pros here, alas). In particular, are you looking for a strat in alliance challenges or public games; and if the latter then whether your focus is individual or coalition play?

      In any event, a "pro" would focus on one strong unit type (with perhaps another in auxiliary role), rather then spread among several like your setup. Focused artillery would obliterate you, and so would airforce. Even a well focused armored force with TDs would overwhelm you (your TD component being too weak, due to having all those other types taking away RSs and research capacity).

      I see only two types of enemies your forces are good against. One is MBTs, the other is infantry. Since both are easily beaten, they'd not be used by "pros".
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

    • MattBooth25 wrote:

      With this strat I can constantly air assault cities
      You cannot constantly air assault competent opponents. They will blast away nearby airfields, and will shoot down your assault forces, too.

      MattBooth25 wrote:

      if they don’t have armor they will be destroyed
      No they won't be. This is the principal weakness of the "armoreds are spectacular" argument: it presumes, incorrectly, that the enemy must have it to counter you.

      MattBooth25 wrote:

      I also have sams and aa close by as support with infrantry for ranged attack
      It is unclear what do you mean by this.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

    • MBT is not completely useless . I build 2 3 to defend my homeland cities specially capital from surprise attack and 2 3 for offense to act as shield infront of my artillery / SAM. But this is the their only role i.e to suck damage while other units like MRL can deal the damage.
      It is stupid to use them as your primary fighting weapon.

      However if you are a lazy and seldom become active then just build tanks and stack them with inf and anti air and send on long waypoints. But in this case your win is not guaranteed. If you have good partners you may win.
      I am the best player of this game that was and ever will be

    • Dracula wrote:

      MBT is not completely useless . I build 2 3 to defend my homeland cities
      MBT is particularly ineffective defending cities, due to its urban terrain malus, alas.
      If you want armored garrison, TD is a better choice.

      But the question still remains unanswered: why would you want expensive and ineffective units guarding your home cities?
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

    • Thank you for all the replies guys, I can see what dym.
      If I'm not wrong, your point is that armored vehicles and particularly MBT are expensive units and a waste of resources that can be used in a offensive air force plus some range units to not even receive damage against ppl who uses armor units.
      Anyways I think it's good having a few troops near your main cities just for not fall quickly in case of attack.
      I'm very thankful to y'all guys I'm learning a lot of things.

    • Zanahoria_thai wrote:

      Thank you for all the replies guys, I can see what dym.
      If I'm not wrong, your point is that armored vehicles and particularly MBT are expensive units and a waste of resources that can be used in a offensive air force plus some range units to not even receive damage against ppl who uses armor units.
      Anyways I think it's good having a few troops near your main cities just for not fall quickly in case of attack.
      I'm very thankful to y'all guys I'm learning a lot of things.
      Aircraft are better suited for situations that require a fast response than armor tho;
      if you have a Hospital in your capital you’ll usually end up always having a stack of aircraft or two in your homeland
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • Im assuming my argument for armor is that it’s terrible on defense. For that role I would honestly be using national guard paired with mobile anti air vehicles. As these in my opinion are some of the cheapest homeland defense you can make. But armor is great on offense. As long as you have anti air support such as SAMs, and mobile anti air vehicles defending your tanks or tank destroyers my air assault strategy works and will defend from a much larger air force. Keep in mind I only use this strategy in coordinated alliance play and would not recommend ever building any armor solo. I personally think armor is the best attack unit in the game in team play, and that only one member should be building it

    • also to add onto my point, the argument that the enemy would continue to destroy my airfields is invalid as I would be defending my airfields that I currently need with anti air. If someone was to use missiles against airfields in provinces that would be terribly ineffective use of resources. As I am done with an airfield I build a new one and defend the new one with my anti air

    • MattBooth25 wrote:

      isnt that your argument with the range beats armor, im saying that with anti air stacks paired with tank destroyers and other units which can air assault that is a far deadlier combo than artillery. im assuming both sides also have equal airforce. this is a debate against ground units.
      You: I have everything just to make MBT viable.

      Us: We have everything else but extra of them because we didn’t use MBT.

      I mean think about it, you need all sort of unit to support MBT, but MBT doesn’t really give any value back to them besides maybe tank a hit for a few time. Support doctrines can stand without melee doctrines but not the other way around
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD

    • Here’s a very rough and extremely simplified Rock-Paper-Scissors analogy.
      Rock= Artillery
      Paper= Aircraft
      Scissors= AA+Radar

      Artillery beats AA+Radar, AA+Radar beats Aircraft, Aircraft beats Artillery.



      As you can see, Tanks/Armor do not fit into this game in its current state, they get beaten no matter what they do. They have terrible range, Artillery wins. They have terrible AA defense, AA+Radar wins. They are extremely vulnerable in the air while air-assaulting, Aircraft wins.

      Armored units additionally use components, which could be far better used for aircraft and navy.


      Question: What can a tank do that is better than one of these other units?

      Answer: Armor has HP. But everything else (speed, cost, combat efficiency, combat effectiveness, healing, versatility, etc) tanks lose. This HP advantage can mean that in very specific scenarios where there is no retreat or room for the artillery to maneuver, they can be dangerous.

      If you say, “I’ll have AA with my tanks”, the artillery player will say, “I also have AA with my artillery.”



      Ultimately, this is not to say that Tanks/Armor can’t accomplish anything in most games. They can be used effectively to gather in some solid public game wins. But in the circumstance when a skilled artillery player shows up, albeit rare, the limitations of armor will quickly become apparent.
      I am Aeneas, duty-bound and known above high air of heaven by my fame, carrying with me in my ships our gods of hearth and home, saved from the foe. I look for Italy to be my fatherland, and my descent is from all-highest Jove.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Aeneas of Troy ().

    • MattBooth25 wrote:

      I personally think armor is the best attack unit in the game in team play
      You keep coming up with your own experience in lieu of supporting argument. Since I am now too busy for a quantified response, let me just quickly point out that in the 100+ serious games I've played, there was not a single case where a good coalition employed armoreds (or vice versa).
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player