Armored hate

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

    • MattBooth25 wrote:

      I hate the MBT, my argument is that the tank destroyer paired with airborne infrantry is better than what most people use which is artillery. Paired with SAMs to deal with air, that is only 3 things I need to research.
      Have we switched from talking about public games (with/without a coalition of buddies) to talking about Alliance matches, or were we always supposed to be talking about Alliance matches, or is the thread a mash up of both (very different) contexts? I admit that I'm a little confused.
    • MattBooth25 wrote:

      im confused aswell. I was in defense of armor. but as an offense and only tank destroyers.
      Everything I said about tanks can apply to tank destroyers and indeed all armor units.

      When those troops are airborne they are very vulnerable to an active opponent. In most public matches you should do very with your strategy, as most players are not experienced or active enough to counter you. But a talented artillery player will definitely have plenty of AA defense near his artillery…it would be a painful landing.

      Ultimately in all forms of melee you end up trading losses with an opponent, ranged combat delivers free damage.
      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.
    • KFGauss wrote:

      [re OOB] ... progress during some games?
      For a simpler (as well as more simplistic) comparison, I have calculated what I call baseline mobilization rates: the maximum mobilization that can be achieved by fully utilizing standard resource production from homeland cities. This yields 1.40 TD, versus 1.25 MobArt, 1.58 MRL, 1.84 StF or 1.94 AHel per day (for a model 5-cities country).

      From these numbers alone, it is clear to me that the ranged attack side is bound to obliterate the TD force.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player
    • tank destroyers being able to be made with lvl 2 army bases and the rocket launchers require level 4. it takes 2.2k supplies to make a rocket launcher maxxed, and 1.7k components to make a maxxed tank destroyter. edit: it also takes slightly more electronics to make rocket launchers than tank destroyers. yes, rocket support players can build airforces but where is the extra supplies coming from to build a proper anti air defense to my airborne infrantry when i can use all my supplies to produce anti air and sams. i think people are overestimating the power of rocket launchers range and being able to produce a large airforce, and underestimating the strength of being able to invest heavily in sams and being able to air assault close or on top of rocket launchers.
    • MattBooth25 wrote:

      it takes 2.2k supplies to make a rocket launcher maxxed, and 1.7k components to make a maxxed tank destroyer
      These numbers are only relevant when coupled with the resource production rates (and then what really matters is the corresponding firepower).
      With the standard base productions, 2100/day supplies and 1800/day components, they yield 0.93 MRL5 and 1.06 TD7 per day, resp. These correspond to 37.1 HP for the latter, against a hard ATK 6.5 for the former. (See my updated spreadsheet for all the gory details.) That is: all the TDs produced can be wiped out by a mere 6 hits from the arties, which are made during the same time.

      Needless to say, the ranged attacker will receive zero damage in this fighting.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

      The post was edited 5 times, last by Zozo001 ().

    • I dont think a "standard base prodution" is a good way to compare units. Because that way you are attributing each resource some value, and the value you are attributing is exactly how much you are producing (or rather the ratio of production between resources). And then you are translating that value into unit output. There are 2 main flaws:

      1. Not all resources go towards unit production. Supplies (and rares) need to be spent on research, which means you have less supplies available for unit production than you think. In other words, you aren't producing 0.93 MRL5 per day, rather less. Same principles applies for buildings, constructing buildings means you have less resources available making some resources more sacre than others.

      2. The resource "weight" a production carries also depends on your overall build. If apart from your MRL you are also building SAMs, TDS, MAA, Infantries (lots of supply consuming units), those supplies are becoming rare and important. The fact that MRL cost XY amount of supplies is going to weight much more heavily than if your build is short on components. In that case you have plenty of supplies leftover and don't really care about the supplies cost of MRL too much.

      Furthermore this argument lacks context and relation to reality. How is it important how many hits a TD can survive from a MRL if the purpose of the TD is to air assault the MRL and not eat MRL shots for nothing? And I think thats a great idea, if the opponent sleeps for ~20mins you can get TD air assaulted on the enemy MRL. You can even air assault behind the MRL to cut off the escape route. Its great! And I think we can all agree that once the TD lock the MRL into melee its a clear case of TD shredding their victims.
      The main issue is how reliable it is. Not many players are looking permanently into their game to intercept air assaulting units or to move their artillery stacks back. It requires A LOT of activity to catch such an air assault, and don't forget you need some time too after discovering it to either send in ASF or enough time for your MRL to pull back. Odds aren't looking too bad and I certainly fathom MattBooth25 to have success with his air assault strategy vs artillery. Might not work against the best and most active players, but I doubt he faces them all the time.
    • Mc_Johnsen wrote:

      [...] you aren't producing 0.93 MRL5 per day, rather less[...].
      Very true, which is why I had said this is a simplistic picture - not meant to be a full account of what all research/building/mobilization is consuming. This is just a rough guide on what the maximums are. Yet my numbers are more useful than your counter-argument suggests. They do show that, given typical resource production, MLRs can be roughly on par with TDs numerically; and that means their firepower is far superior.

      Yes, realistically less MRLs would be produced, as a lot of resources would be needed for other things. But the very same applies to the other side, which would not produce TDs from all available resources, either. And here is another thing: even if TDs were produced to the max, their numbers would not be enough to overwhelm a skilled opponent. The ranged attackers would wipe them out eventually, if not in 6 shots then in 12 or a bit more.

      Despite what you are suggesting, it is not practically possible to air assault on moving arty. So your supposed fighting mode is pure fantasy. The devastating arty fire is very real, however.

      Mc_Johnsen wrote:

      we can all agree that once the TD lock the MRL into melee [...]
      Except it is exceedingly difficult to lock a seasoned MRL player into melee, and air assault won't make that happen.
      Keep in mind that much, if not all, of this perceived fighting happens upon the assaulter flying blindly into enemy airspace (which is firmly controlled by the arty player in all likelihood).
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Zozo001 ().

    • MattBooth25 wrote:

      No true veteran will tell you armor is worthless. This is a rock paper scissors game of skill and luck. Don’t listen to the people saying “if you make MBT, you’re my next victim” these people don’t understand the ways of this game. That MBT player may have a coalition focusing other aspects of military. MBT is the absolute best armor unit you can make in a coalition where you are the armorer. My point is if you make strikers. Someone is going to have SAMs, and ASF. If you make ground someone is going to have strikers. If you make SAMs and ASF someone will have ground. Make a navy someone has subs or navy patrols, make subs everyone has cruisers and destroyers. Play your way, but range units are probably superior in most cases.
      This is completely wrong and worthless. To give it value, print it out on some paper and utilize it at your next bowel movement.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • @Zozo001 You are conveniently ignoring what I said.

      "Might not work against the best and most active players, but I doubt he[MattBooth] faces them all the time."

      I am not saying this is a foolproof strategy against the best players, I am saying this is a viable strategy which likely works most of the time for them. Hint: Most players on the world map aren't checking their game constantly nor are they the best players.

      I never said I am assaulting moving artillery, which btw is also incredibly easy. Tier 1 air assault helicopters have a speed of 3. Your tier 1 MRLs have at best a speed of 1. Significantly worse on worse terrain or hostile territory. Good luck running away from me when I am flying several times faster than you :) I will just wait till you aren't in your friendly flatlands/desert and pounce. And at some point you are surely going to have to send your artillery into hostile territory to shoot? Especially if the province is large. At that point, is the airspace really hostile?
      I can also make that airspace hostile for my opponent with my own anti air and ASF.

      The main weakness is enemy ASF, and those require high acivity from the opponent to use, which I explicitly ruled out for my scenario. Of course its not gonna work out if the opponent is active with ASF nearby, duh. Btw, even the best and most active players have to go to sleep at some point.

      It still hardly matters how many hits TDs can tank, nor do I need overwhelming numbers.

      About your resource game, its still wrong. You cannot compare different resources. Very simple example: both players require to build a certain amount of SAMs. This means both players have less supplies at their disposal. Thus the artillery player has less supplies for MRL production. The tank player however still has full components available for his TD production. Neither TD nor MRL have egregious costs and thats all that matters.