TD's are trash and y'all know it

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

    • TD's are trash and y'all know it

      As tank destroyers are right now they are worse than tanks in almost every of their stats, making them not that suitable to counter main battle tanks. While both are not really part of the current meta in any regard, if find it a bit ridiculous that a unit meant to counter armored unit is inferior to tanks in almost every regard.

      - they have less hp than tanks with about the same anti armor dmg, considering they are supposed to kill armored units that's a bit disappointing
      - the only bonus they receive is in urban terrain where they gain a +25/+50 modifier, on every other terrain they don't gain any bonus, not even in forests
      - tanks will win a fight with TD's most of the time (if you don't drive into cities that is, as its the only scenario where tank destroyers really shine)
      - their low dmg against infantry makes it necessary to always have some sort of anti infantry unit stacked with them
      - with open terrain, forests and deserts covering the biggest part of the map tanks will have an advantage most of the time

      The only positive side of tank destroyers is their low cost and unlocking air transport for them is earlier then for tanks (tho almost every unit unlocks it earlier than tanks), allowing you to eventually win the war of attrition against mbts. But then you will have to spend the resources you saved by building tank destroyers by investing them into something to fight off infantry.


      How to improve tank destroyers?
      The easiest solution to make tank destroyers more of a threat to tanks would probably be to buff their dmg against hard targets.
      Another buff I'd love to see is a bonus for defending in forests and maybe even removing the 25% penalty for defending in mountains and jungles (maybe via an unlock in the tech tree later on) to set the focus on tank destroyers as a anti armor unit best used defensively rather than in offense.
    • Tank destroyers are not only air transportable 2 times earlier then MBT, but also are air mobile and can support paratroopers in airmobile operations. And MBT is 50% more costly in resources, 50% more costly in development, has 50% more time for manufacturing and 100% more costly in maintenance.
      So especially for European doctrine TD is pretty interesting unit, meaning that any land units arent "real battling" units or "damage dealers" (except arty).
      Finally imho TD is good balanced currently.
    • As I already pointed out once, that the TDs are missing are defensice air assault infantry unit as partner in my opinion. TDs are a mainly defensive unit in regards of their buffs, but you can neither pair that with air borne nor special force, because both units are attack focused. Pairing them with a defensive infantry unit would add the tactical option of creating mobile blockades against zerging tactics for example, the main weakness of ground based compositions.
    • Hehe - anyway... Indeed TDs have bit of a problem child for us in the past. We've repeatedly balanced them to the point where we now feel good about them - reflecting what our experiences players are saying (they were very involved in the discussions around them).

      I'd be interested to see what other players say cause generally we see them being used quite a bit now.

      Cheers

      //G
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Well, I like the TDs.
      They are more a devensive unit, but stacked with NG in a city with bunker it is somthing whick blocks enemys for long...

      In some games i made good results in dropping a Stack of Airborne and TDs directly into the Fire zone.
      This was devastating :)
      Bad thing about that was, it was in apublic, so i´m not sure how it works against more skilled guys ^^
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      That was not me, that was already broken!
    • In regards of challenges, we never bothered to use them, close quarter always suffer the disadvantage of fighting against entrenched units, so if decide to take armor we will take tanks, because they just offer better stats. As meatshields they don't offer enought anti-air capabilities. Though I guess in challenges close combat will always play and less important role, because of the lack of mobility and the high attrition. Challenges get dominated by artillery, choppers, air superiority and navy at least in our alliance.

      Also can't remember to have ever seen TD on the opponent team either, if there were armor, it was anything else but TD so far.

      In a challenge such an air assault will get most likely shot down in mid air by MAAV and/or air superiority. If you keep moving your artillery it is hard to jump on it anyway.
    • In the first IMP, my coalition mate used the NG+TD+MAA mix throughout early up to mid (day 18), and i was surprised by how efficient it was to field quickly an very large army. In the context of an reliable set of allies with their specialiation , he had a good role and the TD was really good at its job.


      It becomes increasingly deprecated in post T2, due to what Kalrakh pointed : an inf unit to synergise in defense.

      In challenges, we used them once, and they were not decisive and we should have made mobile artillery instead
      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.