Unbalanced game

LTs are powerful early game. But they are not overpowered. They are stronger in certain regions of the world with favorable terrain than others, which are full of mountains.

Orkhepaj wrote:

Yes . Can u attack with those AT-s? nope so you cant win no matter what.

So you have to combine it with infantry. Even then tanks propably win on rugged terrain and im sure they will win on plains. And still your infs+at-s cant attack . Oh and you can bring some arties with the tanks to soften up the inf+at army.

Well, I wouldn't use solely AT's, that's for sure. Only a fool would do that.

And if I have air superiority, that renders your army virtually useless.

purplepizza117 wrote:

Orkhepaj wrote:

Yes . Can u attack with those AT-s? nope so you cant win no matter what.

If you attack me, and I have AT's, and you have LT's, defence will win almost every time if you combine your AT's with infantry. After the initial attack, if I attack with my infantry and light tank divisions, I win.

tbh I don't use AT. They scale bad (the light tank scales a lot better with upgrades than the anti-tank and everything else seems to do so as well). They can only defend vs light tanks and pantser wagons, not attack. They are slow, meaning they are very vulnerable to be outmanouvred by the tanks over night, which will make them useless. They are completely useless in battle vs anything else but light tanks and armored cars (he can decide to send some bombers or infantery).

Every AT I make means I'm not making interceptors/bombers/LT/Inf. 4 units I would prefer anyday.

AT are excellent defenders. 4 in a fortified city with a mix of other units like infantry and good luck taking that city.

Alternatively I used them as leap froggers with my tanks sometimes. Where I push the tanks forward then follow with the AT just in the event I have to fall back I don't lose as much ground while I reinforce. But I would still prefer to use Bombers/Interceptors with LT to AT any day. But some times it is just not possible to have bombers in every part of the world.

ATs seem to be useful early due to short research time and lower manpower than infantry and are decent for defending/deterring attack at static borders.

lfandel wrote:

ATs seem to be useful early due to short research time and lower manpower than infantry and are decent for defending/deterring attack at static borders.

Are there bonuses worked in for combined arms?

Yes, all the difference stacks work at a much higher efficiency simultaneously, and you get more versatility as well.

Undermin3d wrote:

AT are excellent defenders. 4 in a fortified city with a mix of other units like infantry and good luck taking that city.

Good luck holding that city as you food supply may be cut off.

Kalantigos wrote:

Yes, all the difference stacks work at a much higher efficiency simultaneously, and you get more versatility as well.

Orkhepaj wrote:

Kalantigos wrote:

Yes, all the difference stacks work at a much higher efficiency simultaneously, and you get more versatility as well.

what? where is this in the game?

Put 5 LT with 5MT and 5 motorised AA, and you have everything covered, the stack loses some speed but makes up for it a lot with the others.

Still it is not combined arms bonus , it is just the normal stack malus .

Btw light tanks have armored dmg.

And even still imho your 5 of everything probably looses vs 20 light tanks especially if light tanks are 1 tech lvl ahead.

You still dont use AT-s , they are garbage , they are only good for defending cities , but hey enemy with tanks can just encircle it and take everything else ,while he brings in inf+arties or bombers. And lvling up AT-s doesnt worth the research time at all. From 7 to 8 then to 9 def armored dmg?:O thats so low increase.

LTs have very poor anti-armour capabilities, and if you want something that's good outside of cities against armour, use heavy tanks or tactical bombers.

And you're correct, it's not a bonus, just the removal of a penalty.

See thats too bad, because there should be a combined arms bonus.. even better would be having the RIGHT combo for the RIGHT terrain. For instance , if you used arty , infantry and air power on cities , get a bonus. Tanks in the open with mech inf and planes , inf+arty+planes in hills .. you get the idea.

Well, each unit has it's own bonuses and penalties for terrain and against enemies, so there is a reward system for having the right unit in the right terrain fighting the right enemy.

1. ATs are far from garbage.. presumed they are used correctly.

2. LTs are total garbage ... if used INcorrectly.

3. Everyone can spam LTs

So, that does NOT make the game unbalanced.

And getting back to the complaint this started with: that battle defending the level 5 fort cannot ever - under no circumstance - have been lost, unless:

- significant differences in weaponry level development existed in advantage of the attacker

- significant moral differences existed in advantage of the attacker

And probably both would have to be the case simultaneously....

If that was not the case, the defender must have missed artillery support and/or air support to the attack.

But as the story was written, it simply cannot have happened.

If anything makes a game unbalanced to certain players, it is the fact that their lack of skill and the unwillingness to learn is only outmatched by their willingness to clog the forums with complaints.

A game is never fair for someone who doesnt want to put in the 'think-time', when he is facing someone who is.

oh no again this skill crap , maybe it is you who have no idea how to play

the battle was fought as i wrote , game is unbalanced thats all , lt-s are op , at-s are crap

You are right ... (though you only play since a couple of weeks and you lose a lot)

I am wrong ... (though I play since May and I win a lot)

sigh ... desperately looking for a medicine against noobish stubbornness

BTW, I can't find you in the rankings, so I can see your stats. Do you play under the same name as your forum name?