Tank Destroyers - effective vs MBTs?

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

    • Tank Destroyers - effective vs MBTs?

      So I've checked out the highest-tier stats for MBTs and tank destroyers, and by my math (I know some of the combat is random, but this is in an ideal situation with accurate stats) the tanks would always beat a tank destroyer, 1-on-1, at the highest tier. Is this true? Is there any significant bonus that tank destroyers have vs tanks? Cheaper I think, and they can be air assaulted, but in actual combat do they have any advantages? Cuz they have 17 HP less than tanks, and only do 3 more damage. I know they do far better in cities than tanks do. I'm wondering if it makes sense at all to use them, or if I should switch to tanks. I'm currently running a marine deck, with marines and amphibious combat vehicles. I'm planning to add either tanks or TDs to that formation (so doing 2 marines, 2 ACVs, and 1 of the other armor, rather than 3 ACVs and 2 marines)

    • My opinion of tank destroyers is that they are fast defensive/support units. Because they can be airlifted, they can quickly meet the enemy if necessary. I wouldn't use them on offense, that role is reserved for tanks and/or AFV/ACVs. In an ideal situation the tank destroyer would be positioned in a city or suburbs, discouraging enemy armoured units from entering, or they can delay the advance of armoured divisions.

      They don't have the same stopping power as tanks, though, which is why I still use them. They serve different roles, and with your 2 marine, 2 amphibious vehicle group, I may use tanks and have tank destroyers as its separate unit to assist any group needing it.
    • Very correct support unit for cheap builds and "support OOB" in challenges and coalitions.

      GN + TD in early is amongst the most powerful anti-rush close combat composition you can have for the lowest price imaginable.

      As the game draws longer, i think the usefulness of the TD decreases.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • I've only used them in meaningful numbers once. They were deployed as part of defensive land stacks while I was going full navy. Their only function was add an extra layer of anti-armor.

      The only thing TDs lack, just like MBTs, are defensive capabilities vs their arch nemesis: attack helis. That's where I find Mech Inf to be better utilized for the anti-armor role than TDs. Yes, at max lvl Mech Inf is still inferior vs MBT than TDs are vs MBTs, but their all-"roundedness" (land capture, anti-air, anti-armor, anti-infantry) capabilities make them one of my favorite units.

      I was taught (and successfully tested) in my first ever 4x game that a stack of 3 x Mech Inf + 3 x AFV + 3 x MBT is an all but unstoppable force. Add a SAM in there, and I'd like to see some stop it who isn't prepared for it beforehand.
      "Any of you *uckin' pricks move, and I'll execute every mother*uckin' last one of ya!" - Honey Bunny
    • Well, every unit needs to have an hard counter against which it's supposedly hopeless, and needs an support unit to counter this threat. Indeed, Mech unit is a more multirole "good enough for anti-hard" unit. And in late, groups of mech inf are perfectly able to not be ludicrous against air/helicopters raids.

      Europe mech inf, more precisely.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • That's the main advantage of Tank Destroyer i guess, pardon me for going on a bit of story here;

      In one WW3 game i had, it was going late game and the server is basically a battle of 2 coalitions. My outnumbered coalitions is holding on South America while the threat came from Africa. At first we had a trade of nukes here and there, both coalitions actually already built couple of Teather Defenses so the nuking is essentially futile. And then came the air raid. They deployed this annoying stacks of one Aircraft Carrier and guard it with not 4 but 6 ships, mixture of frigates, destroyers and one officer. Basically the Carrier is immune to Cruise Missile, Strike Fighter and other stack of ships.

      I, too, had built at least 3 SAM per ground unit stacks so i could hold the air raid. When my last ally gave up because he got nuked by 3 different countries, all thats left was me and my almost impenetrable air defenses. When they sent those menacing stacks of 3 MBTs , couple of maxed motorized infantries and SAM, i could hold them with my own stacks of 5 Tank Destroyer and 3 maxed motorized. It's almost mirrored but for the MBTs and TDs trade. I lost in the end because its 1v4, but funnily they reached the winning points cap before i was completely capitulated. In the end i got about 100ish gold lol.

      TDs cheap cost makes them able to swarm in numbers against the costly MBTs
    • In early game, Tank Destroyers also have the luxury to be "decent to good" against infantries, when in city (the +25/+50 % bonus).

      I had a bias against them because they were really underperforming in the past. Nowadays, i do like them, contextually
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Even the biggest stack of tanks gets wrecked by artillery without any losses if the artillery is played well, so I'm no fan of close quarter units by default.

      The usefullness of TD as defensive units gets limited by the fact that there is no defensive infantry units with air assault capabilities. If you want to use them as mobile fortification, you can only pair them with recons and some AA-units.
    • I see quite a big issue with this - it would be fast moblizing, cheap unit with conquer capabilities that not only can air assault but have normal land speed (the only one other unit with air assault and conquer capability is airmobile infantry which is reaaaaally slow on land). Seems quite overpowered to me (and extremely annoying to play against) - jump over enemy lines and go on stroll through his cities, conquering everything on your way. and if they die... well, they were cheap and you've already mobilized 2 more in the meantime. Moreover as air assault is done in helicopters it would be really hard to defend against it while offline - only AA working against that would be Mobile AA which has small range, you couldn't possibly cover your entire border, and even if you did, enemy could just send a bigger stack, something would survive.

      This idea needs a lot more thought in my opinion, as it might possibly topple over the entire balance of the game.
    • Hmm... yes, that is true too. I can see from here the "spam strategies".

      This said, maybe the reasoning can be... expanded.

      The way you dealt with Cruise missiles is a good example of things i was thinking "what do they have in mind" before i tried them.

      Early CMs (level 1 to 3) : cost effective, one warhead, very fragile.
      Late CMs (Level 4 to 6) : BAM. Two warheads, very resistant.

      At first it looked like a bad "progression curve", but in fact, it changes what the unit is "for its role", and now, there is an additional layer of decision inside the tech tree, that is both a nerf and a buff.

      It's a nerf because if i research them T2, suddenly they are less cost effective and i get "less out of them", but they become suddenly more able to pierce good anti-air, so it's also a buff. If the opponent has no anti-air, then leveling up CMs becomes basically a bad idea. I loved the intent when i understood this "counter intuitive tech line".

      Maybe, for the immersion, such a drastic change of role should be hinted in the name (Cruise Missile (T1) → Heavy Cruise Missiles (T2/T3) )

      Why do i refer to that ?

      Because maybe, for national guard, some "similar" reasoning can be discussed.

      Actually, National Guards may be contextually useful in early game. In challenges, we do use them, sometimes extensively, because they are the cheapest "cost per HP", as well as an excellent way to "take damage instead of precious units".

      Maybe the Unit could, at T3, suddenly get air assault, but also suffer an penalty to its speed (like 1.5 to 1.0), and an small electronic costs.

      It's a bit "out of the box" like mortars for ranged infantry or the CMs that change of role throughout their tech line, but i must admit that if we begin to think like that, some units can get a second breath :D
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.

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

    • Yeah, swarming National guards would be probably be to strong.

      I guess, same would be, if you would give the ability to motorized or other current infantries.

      How about some kind of peacekeeper or mountain infantry (Gebirgsjäger).

      Strong in cities and mounains, equally slow as airborne on the ground, hardly any offense stats, perhaps even none.

      Yeah, but his point is, fighter jets don't act, while you are offline. ;)
    • Ah yes... without speaking of the first idea to make them able to follow airborn units, this would be another example of "drastic role change in the same tech line" :D

      35-40 HP infantry that moves 0.1, has a 6.5 / 6.5 in defense & 2 / 2 in attack, with a whooping +75% in cities and mountains.

      When you begin to think like with what has been done with CMs, suddenly the possibilities are endless lol
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • ok, i forgett about the spamming ;)
      Yeti you are right. This will need a deeper look.
      I´m pretty sure you won´t do a favour when you reduce the speed of the guard tier3 to a minimum.
      (Tickets will rise dramaticly ;) )
      Maybe we find anything else to boost the guard encouraging the players in investing in reseach
      That was not me, that was already broken!