Tank destroyers / amphibious tanks & light tanks

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

    • Tank destroyers / amphibious tanks & light tanks

      Somehow these units do not give any edge apart from landing armor in non harbor areas. To research amphibious tanks you need to spend a lot of time / resources on light tanks. I tried to use these units but i am not feeling their usefulness.
      Example: Its better to fight main battle tank vs main battle tank in offense and defense and have them higher level then to use a tank destroyer.
      They are also pretty expensive resource wise compared to the main battle tank. One of the biggest advantages of mobile artillery is that they cost virtually nothing compared to tanks due to the removal of a turret which simplifies design production.

      I think they either need rework or the main battle tank needs a nerf and they amphibious tank needs to be decoupled from the light tank.


      At least that is my opinion on them. They are nice assets on paper but not in combat.

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

    • @neuk I would agree with you in order to research the light armoured tank then the amphibious vehicle has a large cost but have you ever thought of how much it would in real life cost to research better cutting edge technology than your enemy the Tank destroyer has helped me take down pesky cities defended with a stack of BRDMs and M113s as for artillery the cost is better because it it is good at far range but can be crushed easily up close I believe the tank are fine if you think they are weak would you rather have an unbalanced playing field where 1 tank can crush 5 cities before falling I see no reason that these should be changed they are fine the way they are
      من المبالغة أن ندعو إعلان حماس والجهاد الإسلامي عن تحالف عسكري. إنها رسالة بأن شعبنا متحد في وجه العدوان الإسرائيلي - أحمد ياسين



    • Huthayfah.k wrote:

      @neuk I would agree with you in order to research the light armoured tank then the amphibious vehicle has a large cost but have you ever thought of how much it would in real life cost to research better cutting edge technology than your enemy the Tank destroyer has helped me take down pesky cities defended with a stack of BRDMs and M113s as for artillery the cost is better because it it is good at far range but can be crushed easily up close I believe the tank are fine if you think they are weak would you rather have an unbalanced playing field where 1 tank can crush 5 cities before falling I see no reason that these should be changed they are fine the way they are
      please use periods, my headache just got worse from reading that.
      I dream of cold lemonade and a day out on the beach, but my school dreams of cramming more math homework down my throat.
    • Huthayfah.k wrote:

      @neuk I would agree with you in order to research the light armoured tank then the amphibious vehicle has a large cost but have you ever thought of how much it would in real life cost to research better cutting edge technology than your enemy the Tank destroyer has helped me take down pesky cities defended with a stack of BRDMs and M113s as for artillery the cost is better because it it is good at far range but can be crushed easily up close I believe the tank are fine if you think they are weak would you rather have an unbalanced playing field where 1 tank can crush 5 cities before falling I see no reason that these should be changed they are fine the way they are
      I am not talking about artillery it is kinda obvious what it does compared to a main battle tank. I am talking about a tank destroyer costing roughly the same as a main battle tank and a amphibious vehicle costing double to research you will need to research the entire light armor track in order to upgrade the amphibious vehicle making it cost 3 times more then a main battle tank. the upgraded light armor is nice vs infantry and scout vehicles but useless against mbt's. My whole point about tank destroyers is that they are dirty cheap compared to main battle tanks in real life while they cost the same in con. this is not realistic and correct. the turret of a tank is about 40% of the cost, also a turret results in a smaller canon which means by default that a self propelled gun = tank without turret of the same tonnage has a bigger gun because it does not need mechanisms to turn it around. Also it has a better defence then a mbt because it is smaller due to a lower profile, in con it has a lot less hp. The mbt has a huge advantage in open tank to tank warfare and tank vs infantry due to its turret and space for amunition types but should when faced foreward always recieve the first hit because the tank destroyer of the same weight has the bigger gun thus the range advantage. there are different kinds of self propelled guns but tank destroyers manly have a good defence aswel due to the fact they target tanks.

      facts:

      Turrets hield a smaller gun and increase the size of a tank so its easier to hit and has a lower armor. turrets also cost about 40% of the tank.
      Tanks can carry anti tank and anti personel amunition where self propelled guns are split into 2 types a the antitank b the anti personnel.
    • Last I checked our TD's didn't cost the same as our MBT's - neither in research nor in mobilization.

      We carefully balanced the TD into the armoured line of units. If it needs adjustment - as it may, please propose some concrete direct price and stat changes. We will not consider redoing the complete line or adding more vehicles at this time though.

      Please consider all three doctrines and their differing stats when looking at changes.

      Thanks for the assist,

      //G
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • huthayfah.k wrote:

      من المبالغة أن ندعو إعلان حماس والجهاد الإسلامي عن تحالف عسكري. إنها رسالة بأن شعبنا متحد في وجه العدوان الإسرائيلي - أحمد ياسين
      So your a jihadist ?

      With all respect, may I ask you a couple questions please ?

      Thank you
      HATMAKER
      Those who would sacrifice their liberty for security deserve neither.


      I am not a maker of hats but a harbinger of doom
    • Germanico wrote:

      Last I checked our TD's didn't cost the same as our MBT's - neither in research nor in mobilization.

      We carefully balanced the TD into the armoured line of units. If it needs adjustment - as it may, please propose some concrete direct price and stat changes. We will not consider redoing the complete line or adding more vehicles at this time though.

      Please consider all three doctrines and their differing stats when looking at changes.

      Thanks for the assist,

      //G
      That will be kinda hard because i do not know what other factors may imbalance it. The manufacturer of such arms is a reliable source though. Putting it @ 40% of the mbt price would wreck the game mechanics I will play it more and try to evaluate it but I am still new in this game and dont understand how combat works since the attack and defense values are not the raw damage so I do not know what the actual damage is.