Testing and Breaking Down the Tank Meta
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Testing out 2 things. 1. What gun should you use in the early game, improved small cannon or close support gun. Comparing those results to rushing for medium cannons and spending the extra tungsten. 2. What combat width should the tanks you build be to limit ic losses while still being combat effective.
Vod of Testing: / 1446369465
only available for 2 weeks. (twitch rules not mine)
Twitch.tv/71Cloak - Ігри
I’m still mad about how they spaghetti coded semi-piercing despite talking it up, and it really would of made putting some armor on worthwhile so you can still eat some damage.
They didn't actually spaghetti code it. The game director admitted on the forms that they removed it for some reason and then didn't tell anyone.
@@71Cloak i feel tthe dlc added nothing old tanks were better and more balanced
Exactly why I am not getting it.
I would also like to have pre-MTG ships, but don't want to lose the rest of the DLC 🙄
@@MrAbgeBrandt pdx: we spent 9 months making this thing that does nothing and powercreepes meme nation adding tons of bugs give us 15$
modders: we made a total conversion we spent 3 years doing this its much better than anything pdx could ever do here it for free hope u like it.
@@71Cloak wait they removed it?? Why would they do that
Happy to know that i was using tank meta since release NSB. Only that i am using inter war light tank do decrease the IC with armor.
The thing is I am using my armored division to punch something like German or Soviet infantry line, and that mean that there are a lot of infantry reserves (it could be 16 div in reserves). In those cases 3x30 width division are having 3/4 of organization of 4x22 width divisions; even if they have little more casualties.
I found armor on tanks very useful in single player, because I can use less tanks in division and fill up the rest with Mechanized infantry to get high organization and high toughness division.
Armor was buffed in the last update this guide is outdated
Basically use medium tanks or light tanks with lot of soft attack and mix them with 1 tank destroyer (medium max piercing) and infantry/marines/mot infantry and support artillery+support AA (+flame+recon possibly).
This is the do all kill all division.
Is that for one division? Like, how many med. tanks and how many infantry?
I used to make 42w divisions with 14 tanks and 12 mot (I think). What sort of mix should I be looking for with your suggestion?
@@Aiphiae
Basically the opposite.
9 Tanks + 1 TD, and 10 Mot.
If you go for 42 widths, I'd look at your division stats. If Org is below 40, get an extra Mot. If breakthrough is more than 1.5x as high as soft attack, replace 3 tanks with 2 SPGs (keep breakthrough higher than soft attack). This all can shift as you unlock doctrines, etc.
So what's the SP Meta? Just enough armor so the AI doesn't pierce you? Lots of soft attack? I ingore making AT in SP to be honest.
Yes. Also light tanks recon with max armour to make infantry unpierceable with very low cost
If you're going to cheese that bad and find it fun go ahead, I myself think it's ridiculous and not fun at all to find these broken strats the AI can't handle. Might as well just cheese paratroopers and backdoor victory points at that point.
@@taserrr ??? Nobody asked lmao
@@taserrr get expert ai mod
@@taserrr if your gonna throw vs the ai I myself find that ridiculous and not fun at all.
Automatic cannon 2 because almost as good as close support gun and way cheaper. 3 man turret, radio, slopped armor, side skirts, smoke launcher, bogie suspension, welded armor and diesel engine.
Automatic cannon has 2 problems long term. 1. it requires you to do aa research and that's not really necessary. You don't really need anything more than aa 1 at any point in time during the game unless you are going a no air build. 2. It still only has the same soft attack as the medium cannon test which means it will lose more ic on average than the close support gun because the combats will take longer. Sure they are cheaper to spam out but it will cost you in the long run.
@@71Cloak is armor skirts worth it? and what is the ideal germany medium tank design?
@@bentapekatt6607 They provide a little bit of armour and breakthrough which can be useful if it lets you get over that 60-65 armour threshold in your divisions. Otherwise they don't really do anything for mobile warfare.
@@71Cloak Can you explain what this 60-65 armor threshold is?
60-65 armour basically guarantees that infantry and ai tanks will not be abe to pierce you.
Armor (not necessarily to the extreme extent you showed) is still useful for fighting against enemy infantry though. While yes the enemy will always be able to build something to pierce it, whatever they build likely will be in small numbers and likely not everywhere. Also whatever they build that can pierce your armor likely can't then push your infantry all that well as it would be heavily specialized into piercing and hard attack, thus lacking in soft attack to kill infantry. I would like to see another test exploring how much armor is useful against infantry and if that is worth it.
Love these videos! So interesting.
Could you possibly do a video on prepare collaboration government as when I am playing I'm never sure if its actually worth it, like how long does the increased factories from occupied territories pay back the cost of collaboration government, and what countries, if any, should you use this feature on
You mainly want to do it so they will capitulate faster
I found that heavies are better than mediums if you use medium turrets and medium guns 2 or close support guns, then you reduce the concentration of tanks in the division. By doing this, the cost remains similar, but you can have heavies that without added armor that takes away from reliability resist normal infantry. Just put a bunch of points into speed
You just made a more expensive medium for no reason. Make a medium.
@@mr__music5719 no, extra armor plus less fuel use and less supply
@@coblow1681 Armor is useless sense mediums or even lights will pierce you in the end as shown in the vid. Last I checked heavies use more fuel than mediums.
@@mr__music5719 Yes, but not in the beginning of the war when armor really matters. Furthermore you use less units in each division, which lowers the fuel use.
You can use the advanced high velicity canon on a medium because you made its a td not because it is an advanced chassie
I'm aware. Do you think I don't know how turrets/fixed superstructures work? If you have one you are very likely to have the other.
You said otherwise in the video
@@alexanderholt4679 No i didn't. I just swapped to the advanced design because I kept them separate. The only way to get that amount of armour on a heavy tank is with the advanced chassis so I put it against the advanced medium tank chassis. I literally said nothing about how to mount the gun.
@@71Cloak 9:55
@@alexanderholt4679 as in research. By the time you have one you have the othrr.
Would you say that light tank design would be decent for a Bulgaria acting as support on the Eastern Front?
Most people would tell you post nsb that bulgaria's job isbto rush infantry equipment 3 and artillery 3 and provide all the divisions needed for the dday wall.
So, light tanks with huge guns vs enemy armor and medium tanks vs enemy infantry. Yes/no?
Medium tanks can do everything a light tank can do they are just more expensive and have more armour. You can make lights work but it definitely requires better game knowledge.
@Omar Khurshid I think 60 to 65 armor makes them unpiercable against infantry normally
Hey Cloak, I notice very few people use mobile artillery or rocket trucks in the single player games i watch. Could you do one of your comparisons between mobile arty and rocket arty please. I usually biuld and use mobile, but have no clue which is best. Thanks for the videos, awesome work.
I'm a complete n00b with this game (literally can take Belgium only 50% of the time, lol) so help me see if I'm understanding this correctly:
Ideally I want to make 30w medium tanks with medium cannons, correct?
You could even take Poland and France as GER with infantry with armoured recon and some light tanks in the inf division.
I’m genuinely confused why a 30 width beats a 42 width. Why isn’t 42 width strictly better?
Coordination hurts the larger width in a combat causing them to split their attacks. It helps kick the lowest org division out of combat faster but can also lead to attacks not criting and therefore doing minimal damage.
@@71Cloak …I literally didn’t even know critical hits were a thing in HOI4 o_O
@@TheThinKing23 Well they don't actually do more damage. You "crit" an enemy when your attack is higher than their defense. When that is true you have a 40% chance of attacks over their defense hitting. Base chance is only 10%.
@@71Cloak okay thanks. This is starting to make more sense now.
@@71Cloak
Ah, that explains why my late-game tank divisions do _way_ better than I would expect from the comparatively small step in stats...!
But doesn't "overcoming their defense" also sorta suggest that it would be best to make one killer 50w division?
(assuming a purely-theoretical 1v1; I understand things would change once the AI spams 10 divisions per tile, lol)
Very nice video like normal.
Anybody but the bullet and made a good rebalancing mod yet?
As much as i like the concept of designing your own ships, tanks or planes i despise the paradox attitude towards it, its overcomplicated, its stupid, bugged and most importantly, there are just straight up lies that they tell you in technology description vs what you get.
That is not meta tank templates at all and you care waaaay to much about speed. Tanks at 5 km/h is as good as tanks with 8km/h difference is you trade that speed for armor upgrades that give breakthrough so you dont need to research radio
Radio 3 is meta
Tanks at 8kmh are way better at making encirclements than tanks at 5kmh. 5 kmh is almost as slow as infantry while 8 is twice as fast. Stopping at 9 is just way more cost effective for most nations other than the soviets. Only the soviets really have the chromium to go above 9.
@@71Cloak that speed difference dissapears when the infastructure and supply dies everything goes 1km/t anyways and encirclement are overrated as fuck just keep pushing and they will appear naturaly. Keep engine and armor 9 on all tanks and you dont have to use radio to increase breakthrough as it is high enough that means more slots for more damage
@@joelp7665 no its not meta its most used strategy not most eficcient
@@alexanderholt4679 you need more breakthrough as Germany if you want to break Stalin line...
In single player I’ve just been using light tanks as Germany because you can pump out a million of them and as Germany you’re never going to run into enough heavier armor to care.
Lmao. How many for barb?
@@bruhmammasnn7604 Done it three times. Twice with 36 divs, once with 48 because I felt like overkill. 30 width.
@@nate296 lmao. Im assuming u just went straight for moscow?
@@bruhmammasnn7604 Yeah, you should have no trouble making it to Moscow. I always struggle with supply when I decide to focus on reaching the Baku oil fields.
@@nate296 transport planes baby
could you maybe make available an image or document with your tank designs ? I´ve been having a hard time understanding the logic behind them
Having like 3-5k Cas planes, enough soft attack to break the enemy quickly, and enough armor to breakthrough most of their damage is the real real meta
you don't need more than 2k deployed, tiles have a maximum air width too so you'll just be wasting resources.
@@pcgaming7680
If you have an army of 20 divisions of 30 width, that means that 600 combat widths can be at play simultaneously.
You can get 3 CAS per width, so 1800.
Huh... well, that's less than I was expecting, but...
Yup, looks like your math checks out! :)
@@pcgaming7680 O shit I forgot a about the air combat width.
HoI4 speedrun invent-the-MBT-doctrine%
Armor still has its benefit with support companies for space marines
No, It's called support AT
love your videos
Yeah i feel like they just nerfed tanks with this update
Pumping out shitty tankettes really shouldn't be the meta
And the cas spam is cancerous
Kinda is in real life if you look into the concept of the infantry fighting vehicle
How many times did American Tankers run into Tiger 1s between D Day and the end of the war?
_Three._
First time Shermans won
Second time Pershing Lost.
Third time the Tigers were getting loaded onto flat cars.
If you want realism, make some really unreliable Panthers.
204 panthers were sent to Kursk. By July 10th 81 were sent in for repairs for non-combat damage.
🤓
You must have a vendetta against France because you're attacking them so much.
Nah. its just the same save file where everything is already set up.
I really disagree with what you did in terms of only testing in plains, as well as what you said at 6:38, that we shouldnt worry about forest tiles because "we should fight in plains anyways" because that's where tanks do best
precisely because of that reason I optimize my tanks for forest tiles, because forests give you even more debuffs than montains, why would I try to optimize for something that is easy where I get no debuffs and won't have any issue pushing anyways?
So because of this it would be great if you tried out which combat width works best in practice in forest/jungle tiles, since that's the one challenge that tanks have to overcome
I also found that most areas that you really _want_ to win (in Europe) are in forests, so it makes sense to design something that gives you an edge there (or at least minimizes your penalties).
On plains, you'll outright stomp anything, and hills are actually really quite okay for tanks.
I'm still amazed that mountains don't hurt tanks more - I was somehow able to cross the Alps despite deep snow recently...
@@MrNicoJac yeah that was my point, I think it's much smarter to optimize tanks for where they are weak rather than where they are strong, because any human player will try to hold behind riverlines, in forests, jungles (exact same modifiers as forests), or mountains and forts if no forests are available
@@anonymous-rb2sr how do you optimise a tank for forest ?
@@sirundying well for one make it the ideal combat width to match forests, add flame tanks (and anything else that gives a bonus in forest and jungle tiles)
My issue with the video is that he didn't test the different combat widths in forest tiles, so I still don't know if 42w/21w tank divisions or something else work best there
personally the tanks I use are 3mot 3arti 3tanks, that gives you 21w and a bunch of soft attack, kind of a budget option and you can swap out mot for mech, as well as truck arti for SPA and get better tanks depending on what your industry can handle
but the new combat mechanics are so strange that I wonder if something ridiculous like a 10w mechanized with CAS wouldnt do better lol
just plan your offensives around forests then.
if you are germany you can push the massive plains of the udssr, and just drive around the forests and either surround them or let your infantry deal with it.
play to your strenghts, not your weaknesses (as long as they are avoidable).
you dont try to design marines to fight in situations that they arent supposed to be in, same with tanks.
As always, thanks for the video! Incredibly helpful information. I see some haters in the comments, so I wanted to add that you're doing awesome and there are a lot of us who really appreciate the info. As someone who spends a lot of time testing myself, I understand how hard it can be to make fair tests and gather useful data, but you somehow always manage to find incredibly useful tidbits that I steal to use in my games. Please keep making videos!
I always see you running 30w tanks, and from my testing previously, I found other widths to be optimal, so this video is going to spark another round of testing from me! An interesting video idea for you, since you're on the subjects of tanks, might be optimal flame/tank recon company tank designs, and more importantly, their effect on combat. There seems to be a lot of confusion in the community about when to use these companies, how effective they actually are, and optimal tank recon designs.
Did you get around to testing the other combat widths? I’m curious what they are.
So as I understood the most ideal tank division would be: 30 width with Medium Tanks that have soft attack and 2 or 3 Light Tank Destroyers to pierce enemy tanks with Mot./Mech. 60/40 Split and support companies
not really , as much as i value his video he is only testing how optimal is division , with current combat width 40-44 is best as bigger divisions do more damage and 40-44 width has the least penalties in most terrains , there are some charts ua-cam.com/video/Uf_2_UiZKg8/v-deo.html , 30W is actualy one of weakest ones you can make as you get about 85% combat effectiveness on averige , vs 94-95 %on 44
in his older testing how cordination works , damage still favours bigger divisions , not to say bigger division generaly takes less loses then 2 smaller ones of "combined same size"
@@VarenvelDarakus the more damage part is not true since no step back. that mecanic was moved to coordination stat. and even focus on coordination you wont reach the damage level pre NSB
I just got no step back. Perfect timing.
You know when I tried to play Germany in mp, when they vetted me they asked "what width will your tanks be?"
I said "30" They laughed, saying that 40-width is better, and told me to just play a minor.
I played S. Africa with my 30 widths and when the UK was like: "Yo, S. Africa, get your tanks to 21 or 40 widths", I told him no and then he took all my divisions.
And that is why I don't play multiplayer.
I understand that armour is pointless in PvP, but does this also apply to PvE?
Amour to a point against the ai is useful. You don't really need more than 60-65 armour on a division to be unpiercable for the entire game.
Any chance we could see a comparison between light/medium SPGs vs medium tanks with howitzers vs TD's with heavy cannons for performance vs infantry divisions (and in terms of IC efficiency)
Basically, figuring out what tanks / divisions of such are most efficient for dealing with the AI.
Oof.. Luckily I don't really play MP so I don't have to think about meta and these meme designs that would take the fun out of it.
Heartbroken that the tank update made tanks worse than they already were. Why can’t they just follow principles of historic tank development: armor is helpful, machine guns are more effective on soft targets than fucking infantry kits. I think it’s just a symptom of Paradox not being able to decide whether Soft Attack or Breakthrough should be the most important attacking stat and just making none of them work fully while ruining armor
Is it possible for someone to make a mod to fix this?
@@moekitsune the challenge is buffing tanks without making them overpowered. That's a tall order for a guy to do in a fraction of his downtime, which is how mods are developed. On the other hand the dev team's full time job is to make the game playable and balance is one of the pillars of that.
@@cm01 that's a good point.
3:18 i think you mean CS gun looses the least amount IC.
why making two tank design for your anti-tank division ? to resolve that, you pick an heavy tank chassis, you put 1943 high velocity cannons and turrets, you turn your design on "tank destroyers" and done
"No armor is best armor" - PhlyDaily
Pretty funny how you essentially ended up with the M4 Sherman
"it doesn't matter whether you have _extra_ armor because they will get through anyways, so instead it's best to focus on still being able to pierce them but getting more tanks that are cheaper"
I mean, the m4 was heavily armored for 1942, and for it's weight at the time.
Could you do a single player meta as well?
Just do soft attack tanks or improved medium cannons. If your only worried about infantry then the first test is really for you.
@@71Cloak Or just make flame tanks that are the cost of the base chassis. Works too well.
No 40 width infantry?
I almost never use 40 width. too little org per width. Slightly less expensive than their smaller brothers but easier to defeat.
8:27
A yes
Tiger biggest nightmare Sherman horde
Sorry for my ignorance but what does "IC" stand for? i assume the "C" is cost, dont know what the "I" stands for. Great video!
industrial cost. everything in hoi3 was done through ic and the phrase stuck around.
what about SP gun tanks? what if your enemy just makes a bunch of good inf divisions and doesnt go armor at all, whats the tank division that you are supposed to use against that?
Lots of soft attack. Close Support gun early in the game, howitzers later on or you can still just stick with the close support gun.
@@71Cloak tested this myself yesterday and it seems that light tank with close support gun in a motorised division is the way to go, made a 6-4 division and rolled russia and such in singleplayer
Are Autocannons worth it at all?
I don't ever do aa research past aa 1 in sp. The first auto cannon isn't better than the improved small cannon or close support guns which are both 1936 tech. So a 1940 tech you likely aren't going to research provides a more cost effective but less overall stats compared to a 1936 tech you are always going to research.
So improved auto cannons just aren't worth it in my head and the non improved variant isn't very good either.
What difficulty level are you running your tests?
Normal. Anything else isn't a fair analysis of how a fight is going to go.
Armor is still viable. And works great and yes you can build an uncrackable tank: can show you if you so wish