Unbalanced game

Orkhepaj wrote:

Thx for the adult reply Azazel , i appreciate it much.

While I understand how you want to compare this game to chess/go I still think the similarities are so little that it is not a good analogy , in every game where you have an opponent you have to anticipate the enemy to some extend.

The only similarities with chess is that both games have multiple types of units ,and both are intellectual games and imho the similarities ends there.

As you wrote the different units are for different roles , no problem there , the problem i think is that AT-s are very limited in their role while at the same time they are not realy good at it. Even if they are defending they are hardly able to stop light tanks due to their so low hp. The light tanks have twice hp while being much faster , and round better at everything else.The only area where AT-s are clearly have the upper hand is city fighting , but it can be so easily countered by the LT-s.

And lvling up the AT-s offers so little ,they dont worth the research over other units.

Anti-Tank Level 5 (you get access at the exact same time, both are the max levels) has 10 HP, and has 12 defence against Armoured class, with an attack of 6.

1 Light Tank, in 1 combat phase, will do 5 damage, which is 50% of the AT's health attacking or defending.

1 Anti-Tank, in 1 combat phase, will do 12 damage, which is 60% of the Light Tanks health when defending (clearly it's superior), and 6 damage, which is still 30% of the Light Tanks health when attacking.

This means that 1 Light Tank will need 2 rounds of combat in order to destroy and Anti-Tank. If this is in Urban or Mountain, it's then 4 or 3 rounds respectively.

It also means that 1 Anti-Tank will destroy 1 Light tank in 1.8 rounds whilst defending. This is probably about 2-2.5 if in Mountains.

They are, as a result, actually STRONGER than Light Tanks. Because, point for point, Anti-Tanks are actually stronger than Light Tanks, they have a reduced speed. This reduced speed, in combination with their greater strength being on the defensive, this makes them a defensive unit, best suited for protecting stacks from attacks by Light Tanks. Now, because they are strongest and best in a defensive position, this makes most people overlook them, because most people think in terms of attacking, of being the aggressor, of being the one doing the invading.

Mathematically, AT's are stronger than LT's... When used defensively. If you don't put any focus on your defence, then for your style, your play, your games, they may be worthless. However, for those that do play defensively in one form or another, and you'll no doubt see for yourself when you invade someone who uses these effectively, they are incredibly useful.

Pay attention to the numbers bud. Point for point, AT is actually better.

Why do u write this? Ive already written this pages ago. It shows that at-s are only capable of defeating the light tanks in defense and in not plain terrain , while they cant defeat lt-s if they attack , nor they are good against anything else , while lt-s are much faster and still can be used vs infantry and such.

Even in defense they are weak ,as they can be outmanouvered .

Who would actually attack 1 AT with 1 LT? You just run around or you get some back-up to overwhelm the AT. That's what any descent player would do. The slowness is a big part of why it is so useless vs LT.

... Really? Are you two serious, or just trolls?

Azkazan, I was pointing out the MATH! I was using 1 and 1, purely and simply to point out the strength differences. Those strength differences still apply when in stacks, so... really? seriously? And now, that "slowness" is a moot point, because Tank Destroyers, which have even greater health and speed, if even ever so slightly less power, replace the AT. So you simply cannot use that as a "they're useless" reason anymore. And I can assure you, even without the speed, they're not useless.

Orkhepaj... Did you really just ask me why I wrote that? When I've spent this ENTIRE thread trying to help you, trying to show you, trying to explain to you how there are so many different factors, so many different situations, and in each situation, some units are useless, where in a different situation they're amazing... and you ask me why I wrote this?

If you've done this math yourself then you should be well aware that they're a useful troop in many different situations, and not very useful in others, just like a light tank. A light tank is absolutely useless in defending cities... yet how many people use them that way? Just because you, or the people you play, do not use AT's well, doesn't make them useless.

Just because you actually refuse to see, acknowledge, and recognise that not everything works in every situation, it doesn't make them useless.

Infantry max level vs Light tank max level, in urban centres, beats the light tank. Does this make the light tank useless? no. It means that in it's roles, it's great. It's a fast unit, with a reasonable attack and defence against both infantry and armour. It makes it a flexible unit, but as a specialist unit, it sucks donkey nuts, because it's not as fast as an armoured car, the specialist speed unit, it's not as powerful attacking armour as a tactical bomber, because it's not a specialist armour attacking unit, it's not as powerful defending against armour, because it's not a specialist anti armour unit, it's not particularly great against infantry, defensively or offensively, because it's not designed to be. It's designed to be able to be used in a lot of different ways, but not to excel in any particular way. That's why there are more specialist units, like the AT.

Now, you can either face the fact that you're not using a particularly great unit when you use the Light Tank, and face the fact that most other units aren't designed to be as flexible, but are specialist units, or you can continue bashing anti-tanks because they're specialised units and you refuse to acknowledge that that makes them good at one thing, and not many things, and simply use them for those things, and stop with crap like "why are you writing this?" when someone is clearly trying to explain this to you, so that you stop complaining, or at the very least, you should just straight up stop being a troll.

Anti-tank and tank destroyers arn't the same. We can still say 1 is great and that the other sucks. Saying the AT sucks doesn't mean the tankdestroyer will suck as well. The math is different for both units as well... Tankdetroyers for example deal more damage, are faster, have 300% more hitpoints and belong to the armored class. So I don't see why we can no longer say AT sucks because of low speed now the tank destroyer has come into play. By the time tank destroyers are into play we have passed how many days? 16 on the worldmap (would we research tank destroyers ASAP?)?

It's very nice to do maths, but as I was pointing at the speed stat, it's clear there is the weakest point of the AT that can only be overcome by placing AT at many different locations (= horribly split up). The more anti-tank in a stack, the less there are out of the stack, so you run around and push through. If the many AT are split up, they are weak vs any stack of yours, so you overwhelm them. It lacks the movability to adjust to the maneuvers of the LT. Imagine you have 3 LT and enemy has 3 AT standing, you split up and run around. You have 3 times 1 LT and enemy has 3 times 1 AT in 3 provinces. Combine you LT and push through, he probably hasn't manages to group all 3 anti-tank in time to withstand your attack. The AT is a 1 trick pony and it has a weakness that makes doing that 1 trick very hard.

The LT in lategame is mainly used for it's speed to go behind enemy lines and annoy him by taking his provinces. The AT has 1 job and that is stopping the armored class, LT in early game, but with being to slow it can't do the job, no matter what the mathematical results will be, since it's not how it practicly plays out in this game. I've destroyed so many AT's that did like nothing.

In the worldmap I have wars in Southern-Afrika, Eastern-Azia and Western-Europe. It lacks the versatility to attack and I can't defend my huge borders vs tanks with AT. Enemy can just go around them and go towards core provinces. Or... Atleast I can...

AT is a relatively weak unit because it has disadvantages. I think that is because real life AT's would have had disadvantages as well. If you are using them in stacks of AT I think you are using them wrong. Due to low hit points (realistic) they need to be with other troop types for protection or their firepower won't last long. They need to hide amongst other troops. They can deal an awful lot of damage. They deal enough damage that if they are properly situated as part of a larger group of units they likely won't get to be used because the enemy will avoid them. That means they have served their purpose. An enemy will wait for artillery to roll up and serve its purpose or wait for an airstrike or wait for infantry to go it alone or wait for their own LT. They are a deterrent and a force multiplier. In comparison the LT is a staple unit. It isn't super powerful but becomes powerful in groups. Its relatively hard to kill but doesn't deal an awful lot of damage. Its fast, but not the fastest. LT is jack of all trades (except taking cities or mountains) but master of none. It is very much like infantry.

I personally prefer not to use AT since you can't research everything. Materials and time are too limited. I still deal with enemy LT. And the glory days of the LT are few in number. Its glory lasts 4-6 early game days where LT stand out from the crowd. Even in those days they still better steer clear of any force complimented with AT.

AT are like AC. They fill a specific role but are otherwise not very useful. Any game has both general purpose units and specific purpose units.

All units can't be versatile or versatility becomes meaningless. It sounds like you want to exchange one all powerful unit for another. Except the first one isn't all powerful. Its only versatile.

" personally prefer not to use AT since you can't research everything. Materials and time are too limited"

this is what i was talking about , the at-s are not good enough in their role to worth the research time , and if you dont lvl them up they wont stand a chance even vs their intended target

at-s needs a boost thats for sure

I wasn't saying that at all. What I was saying is they are useful, I just prefer to deal with light tanks in other ways because I would rather work in different directions. I'm very frugal. I won't research much of anything until I see or at least try to forsee the need for it. You can't research everything even with non-stop research in progress. So I focus on the units that make my gameplan work, then only change the plan when the need arises. I.e., if I'm getting mobbed by LT, I'll go ahead and research AT. If I see tanks massing at the border, I'll go ahead and research them. By default, LT don't concern me nor do the players who relentlessly attack.

Why are we still talking about this anyways? We just got Tank Destroyers. That is a huge bump to tank defense. Now you don't need to hide AT amongst meaty units. Other units can now hide amongst them.

~Azazel~ wrote:

... Really? Are you two serious, or just trolls?

And, Azazel, you see now why I was getting less and less friendly and steering towards making them 'think for themselves'? Because what you got in return for your very good posts, is all you will ever get from them.

It is either purposely trolling or they are beyond any help. Since I, however, still believe every person can be helped to grow, it must be the other.

Azkazan wrote:

Who would actually attack 1 AT with 1 LT?

Once again Azkazan and Orkhepaj, you refuse to recognise my point, purely because you are inable to recognise that YOUR way is not the ONLY way. You insist on saying "this sucks", instead of simply acknowledging that, x, y, or z, unit simply doesnt work for YOU, whilst it might work for others, and that's simply because you either don't or refuse to understand how the unit works, or because your playstyle works in a manner that's far too rigid and inflexible, or perhaps you rely so much on speed.

And Azkazan, the Tank Destroyer is actually the same strength as the Anti-Tank if you pay attention to the stats. It actually has slightly less damage, in exchange for slightly greater health and greater speed. Making it the same in effectiveness, simply changing the tactics that it is best suited for. If you cannot see that they ARE the same, and for some unknown reason proclaim one to be so vastly stronger than the other (which they aren't) then there will never be an opportunity to properly explain how AT's work to you, either of you, because you do not wish to see it. If you do not wish to see it, then talking to you, and trying to help you, is pointless. From what I can see, all you wish to do is stamp your feet, proclaim "I'm right, this sucks, change it now because I say so! No one else could possibly have a better understanding, or see it in a useful way, so just do it!", and waste everyone's time by making this thread in the first place. So on that note, since I'm acknowledging your refusal to see things as being potentially any other way than you pro-claim, enjoy your thread. I've better things to do with my time than help those who don't want to be helped, despite their complaints.

I'm pretty sure I know what their problem is. It isn't the LT, its the way they want to play. I'm guessing they want to sit and not be bothered and focus solely on their economy. They don't want to be troubled by early aggression. LT is the early aggression. It really isn't that powerful early. It fights just a little bit better than the AC early.

I would not like to be bothered early as well. So I will make sure I'm not.

I do think Tank Destroyer is quite a bit better than the AT. But then it costs a lot more too and should be. Its more adaptable since it can serve as a stand alone unit. AT need to accompany a force. Another factor these 2 seem to ignore is that AT costs less than half of what a single LT does. But that doesn't matter because they don't want to be bothered. The firepower of 2 AT badly dwarfs the firepower of the LT and they have the same combined HP.

I'm sick of this thread too. Is there an unfollow option on this forum?

I have no idea lol.

Hmm it looks like the fanboys defend the game beyond sanity .

Now they use lies to back up their false claims. AT costs less than half a LT costs jesus at least everybody can see you are just outright lieing .

"because your playstyle works in a manner that's far too rigid and inflexible" i love these assumptions ,they are based on nothing , just to show we cant play

"They must be trolls." says the one who always do personal attacks and nothing else

Bottom line : At-s are crap , you couldnt refute this . You just came up with lies , false assmutions and personal attack, very good job ....

So pls boost the AT-s , so they will be worth to be researched and used . THX

Oh and dont forget to boost strat bombers too , they are also crap.

I use Anti-Tank units, and find them very effective. I actually had better results using AT's than LT's and MT's. I'm defending the unit, because if used properly, it works well. I have refuted it, and I always will refute it, it's simply that you refuse to acknowledge that fact. That's not my problem. It is however a representation of your personality, one that's stubborn, and single minded. Now, as you've repeatedly shown evidence of that in this thread alone, it's no longer an assumption, but simply using the available information to make an assessment. Someone with a stubborn and single minded personalty, who has no interest in hearing anyone else's point of view, and is rigidly refusing to even ATTEMPT to see something from another angle suggests a dogmatic person, dogmatic people are typically only capable of dogmatic thinking, which means they follow one single path, with stringent predictability. Which by extension makes tactics and strategies they use rigid and inflexible as well. So there was no assumption made. There was however, educated assessment of a personality done. You assuming that I assumed? That's an assumption based without evidence or reason other than it supports your own perspective, which further supports my assessment of you and your personality.

AT's work. Period. Just use them right.

You don't like AT's? You think they're bad? That's okay, it's fine. You're entitled to your opinion and perspective. I offered you an alternative. You refuse to acknowledge it as even a remote possibility. That's on you. When someone rips your tank army apart with "inferior" AT's because they're flexible enough to do so, just remember that I told you so. Beyond that, take care and best of luck to you Tank-Boy.

_Pontus_ wrote:

Sorry; didn't know the terminology was different in English. In my language they are called (translated into English ofc) 'Tower' and 'Knight'.

A bit late but everyone who has played chess knew what you were talking about there.

I am a native English speaker who likes to teach chess to my friends and about one in five name them 'Towers' and I always understand what piece they are even though they're 'rooks' in my mind.

'knight' is our official name for the piece that moves in an L shape, or two and one. 'Horse' is what many will call it.

The 'Bishop' moves diagonally and I don't know why someone started talking about it instead of the 'Knight'.

EDIT: And about AT. I like them because they don't cost oil in production or upkeep. My tank stacks run with AT so it's all good.

I would just like to put in my two-cents. I use AT's when I am running low on either oil or oil production in provinces without infrastructure at all, since AT's can be produced with simply an industrial complex. I think At's are useful when defending (with a combination of infantry, of course) and when attacking an area with no defence whatsoever (when there is no disadvantage to the slow speed of AT's). But generally I use tanks for their speed and unpredictableness for both offence and defence.

Vigor555 wrote:

I'm sick of this thread too. Is there an unfollow option on this forum?

thanks

so... this thread can be closed, right?