In real life doctrine you only need a few heavy tank divisions to break focal points, some light tank divisions to fight in special terrain such as desert and swamp (and use them to support infantry as well), and you make as many medium tank divisions as possible, that’s how M4 Sherman and T-34 became the most produced tanks during the war.
In real life doctrine it is not consistent whatsoever and only comes down to the nation you are a part of, the problems they face, and the solutions they come up with. If your enemy is full of mechanized divisions of medium weight chassis with only small amounts of heavy tanks, then augmenting your own regiments with dedicated anti-tank solutions like the gun carriage designs of the Jackson will be plenty enough for entrenching your own troops. Reserving heavy tanks to breakthrough pushes was also German tactics theory based on Guderian's view of lightning war and it's application to armor, but fell short as communication technology improved and became more widely available and logistical strain set in. It had no bearing on the M4 or T-34, as those tanks were produced for very different reasons. The M4 was incredibly efficient production wise but was also easy to fit on transports to send across to the theaters, while the T-34 was quick to produce and was simply shoveled out as Russia was losing equipment and tanks quickly so they needed replacements and didn't have time to set up efficient logistics infrastructure to repair the damaged tanks they had to an operational level.
@@AstinCrowyou got everything wrong, during the early war everyone uses light tanks, 38t, Panzer I, Panzer II, A-20, T-26, Cruiser, Crusader, etc., only small amount of heavy tanks like KV-1. Later in the war everyone upgraded to medium tanks, the Germans mostly use Panzer III, Panzer IV, Panther as well. If you want to argue about different doctrine, Britain is the one you should talk about, they made ridiculous amount of Churchill infantry tanks, it’s basically heavy tanks in an infantry division, or “space marine” in hoi4 terms. But even that, Britain went with American M4 Sherman as well when they got supplied with it, Churchill tanks became like support tanks. Everyone is roughly the same in the tank business.
@@kindasimpson9704xcept you are attributing tank design to HOI4 with classifying everything as light tanks, medium tanks, and heavy tanks without even considering the doctrines they were designed for. What constituted the different designations was entirely dependant on the users, with Japan referring to the I-Go Type 89 as a medium tank at 12 tons (the Panzer III was twice as much and the M4 three times) and Germany called the Panther tank a medium (despite weighing more than even the Jumbo Sherman heavy tank). The British aren't the exception, but are just as average with everyone else in terms of universal standardization of tank generalizations, they just didn't try to hide their differences. Not to mention, the only reason why light tanks were common in the first place was because of the FT Renault and the progression of armor development. Medium tanks in the 1920s and early 30s were incredibly complicated for little benefit and heavy tanks were either testbed designs, like the Neubaufahrzeug, or designs that were just too difficult to produce in large numbers, like the KV-1. It had nothing to do with doctrines, again, as both Germany AND Russia saw a need for heavy armor immediately and wanted to field massive amounts of them. Mediums exploded in popularity for very different reasons for each. The German medium tanks being used as the chassis for support guns as well as providing heavier artillery while lighter tanks were designed for countering lighter armored vehicles and infantry. The Panzer III, which was lighter by a few tons compared to the IV, was at first the dedicated AFV as they believed the 5cm gun with its superior firerate would defeat enemy armor of the era, as well as its speed to compete with British and French designs. The IV was moreso a turreted support gun with its original intended use and only became the dedicated AFV after the longer 7,5cm gun and higher velocity ammo were designed to defeat the Soviet heavy tanks in Barbarossa. These comparisons cannot be made for the M4 Sherman or T-34, with the former continuing to be used as both an infantry support tank as well as a dedicated AFV and the latter being designed from the ground up to combat enemy armor. The disparity between roles of different tanks called the same class is why we can't just slap on a role for them and our hindsight really fucks up further classification. How is the Panzer III flamm considered a medium tank when it doesn't have an armament capable of harming enemy tanks? How do you classify the I-Go, a very light medium tank by tonnage, the same way you do a M4A2 that weighs 20 extra tons? Why is the Panzer 38t, a tank clearly designed to fight other tanks as its primary role, be classified the same as the M5 Stuart, a tank designed to provide armored reconnaissance? Should the passage of time and progression of technology factor in? When you look at the heavy tank situation as well, you can quickly deduce why the tanks were in fewer numbers comparatively. The Japanese straight up didn't prioritize tank development and would rather the steel be used elsewhere, as they didn't have much to go around. The Russians, on the other hand, needed tanks to produce and the still teething KVs were very difficult to manufacture. The Americans straight up saw no need to develop heavy tanks and only labelled what are in retrospect medium tanks as heavy tanks just for morale purposes. Hell, the M26 was reclassified after since America didn't need to keep up the façade. As for the Germans, they were constantly having resource shortages for the designated heavy tanks so they were never able to make the numbers they wanted for their Tigers. The Panther, if we count it as a heavy tank by weight and armor class, then that automatically bolsters the amount of heavy tanks Germany has and defeats the argument that they had few heavy tanks. However, that'd be an interpretation as the Germans designated the Panther as a medium tank, for whatever reason they were thinking of at the time. Just look at MBTs nowadays and how varied they all are despite all having the same classification. That should make it evident that classifications are done based on individual doctrines, not golden rules or universal standards. It is only done in games like HOI4 because trying to actually simulate different tanks accurately would be a nightmare for the developers, so just grouping tanks together and slapping general stats is far easier and more understandable for the player.
@@12halo3 The T-34, a design that was in testing but showed promise, was a good stopgap at the time due to the armor being good enough to not render the tank cannon fodder and the overall layout and implementation of cast hulls and minimal welding resulted in a tank far easier to produce than anything else they had. This is compared to the KV-1s that had very long production times due to riveted armor and inefficient compartment layouts, as well as older T-70 light tanks that were already obsolete. Easier to produce projects like the IS series tanks wouldn't come out for a bit, so it was the obvious option to shove into mass production to halt the Nazi advance, getting more than a thousand units into service by the end of the same year it was accepted. So yeah, the design definitely was easier to produce and the cut corners just came down to minutiae.
This is why we need more teachers like feedback in hoi 4. For new players and for players who are missing out on crucial information. He doesnt blast us with "spreadsheet" information. A simple, "Heres your question, Here are the answers, Here are the differences. Pros and Cons." Nice and simple! I wont lie, My mutual respect for light tanks has rapidly gone up now thanks to feedback explaining on their small and limited potential. I appreciate that. Now i know what i could do with light tanks. Gonna do a few experiments with them with minor nations.
I did a few experiments myself with the light tanks and I saw that the best thing to do is to use them after a breakthrough which i made with medium and some light tanks while the enemy isn't protecting the whole front and just swarm the nearby cities this tactic is even better in late game because of speed also I usually have only a few of them as I make them quite cheap
@@yagovmolotov5127 I presume its Motorized whit Light tanks (bult for speed). as just motorized infantry even in armored (mechanized) will have problem if they hit anything. you sort of need some light tank div to make the really efficient. or as some nation would say when they saw a bunch of 1970 M113 armored personnel carrier rolling down the road (the early model only had a crewed MG not even a turret for self defense). oh a shooting gallery.
Mediums really are just the best IMO. Cheap and flexible, can't go wrong. I think people sleep on the interwar medium too. With torsion bar and ammo storage you can get it to over 80% reliability with decent armament. You can't make it very fast (maybe 5-6 kph) but you can give it 20-30 soft attack and 30ish breakthrough. Definitely passable for pre-1938.
Yeah but having less than 90% reliability is a no for me,unless u talk light tanks. Obviously this is a very personal view but a light tank with 70% reliability it's whatever,cheap to make and replace,but a medium with torsion bar(that raises the cost) and only gets it to 80%? You lost 100 tanks to attrition,but could have saved an extra 10/15 if u had better modules? And at the start of the game,so when u would be using interwar,10/15 tanks are about 2 weeks of your production basically stopped to resupply your 2/3 tank divisions (if u make 40/44 width). And that doesn't count for the tanks destroyed In combat that you won't recover because of low reliability. Basically,what I'm trying to say is that if you make mediums from the start,either replace them as soon as you can (by rushing 1938 mediums immediately) or just use light tanks with a lot of armour to reduce the IC wasted on attrition.
@@veersavarkar5857at least until no step backward, which I have, I can't upgrade tanks from previous generations. Every upgrade requires the same "body"
In singleplayer lights take the cake for me. You can build solid ones which dont even need tungsten or chromium. Two resources most nations would need to import. If you dont have to do that your economy will be reliefed which means you can invest more into air superiority and cas which are the best advantages you can have in the current patch. Not only that. Cause of the very tiny diference in breakthrough lights with just enough armor so that 95% of the AIs units cant pierce them are just superior to mediums. You ll have more tanks which eat less supplies and fuel which do the job only a tiny bit worse than mediums but are even better in some terrains. And since lights have their 2nd model already in 1936 they just laugh at the interwar medium. Id never build the latter. Its a worse, slower and more expensive tank than what 36 lights can be.
seriously, in order for Heavy and Super heavy to "makes sense" is to give player the option to put them on "support" with reduced unit number and stat (like light tank recon) but still give bonus on some terrain like against the fort without any other penalty.... the problem is we only had 5 support slots....
@@FlinzPrime yes, especially when SP artillery for most places were only available in very limited numbers, especially early war for example in 1940, the Germans only had all together 80 SPGs (42 Stug III + 38 StuPa I) for the invasion of France, tho i don't remember their distribution likewise the French had 70 SP TD (Laffly W15T CC) but those were distributed to the ratio of one battery (eq to a company) per division, subordinated to the divisional artillery
To be fair, I rock full lights all the way, less tech needed and can be juiced up in armour and speed, you can spam ungodly amount of them and even go full armies with battleplan, they just clean house anyway
Yeah, AT are a bummer. You can use masses of cheap LT to force the enemy into divesting factories for AT. A light economy might be easily owerwhelmed by this. Also, they are one of the best options for recon companies.
I used to troll my friend with the heavy tank destroyer with the super heavy gun as the united states, because if i remember correctly you can get the hard attack up to like 75, and the piercing to like 330, those tanks were mad expensive, but no other tank stood a chance against them
I use mediums for much the same reason. Some games as Germany, I'll make a few heavy tank divisions but that's more for my entertainment than actual need. It's quite easy to break through lines with just medium tank divisions, therefore the extra breakthrough heavy tanks provide goes unneeded, not to mention the inability of the AI to keep up with their piercing. Though the tactic of using heavies to make short breakthroughs and encircle a few divisions, which is what heavy tanks excel at doing, at a time does have merit.
@Mr Quiz Well, I've got a game going at the moment as Germany (1941) where I'm testing some naval stuff so it's not "ideal" land division builds but currently using a 30 width medium tank template that consists of: 1. 8x Medium Tanks, of which I'm using just the basic Pz. IV A you get as a free design from the tech focus with the Soviet Union. It's not anywhere near ideal, mind you, and at this point well out of date. 2. 6x Motorized. Was 7x Motorized but seeing as I just unlocked mechanized, I'm slowing switching over to that. 3. Support AA, Support Arty, Engineers+Motorized Recon, and a Maintenance company. I should probably ditch the engineers for flame tanks, just haven't built any yet. The engineers+recon are primarily for movement bonuses, though the defense on my tank divisions isn't terrible with that extra entrenchment. Germany can afford to be a little wasteful with IC though! This division holds 400 medium tanks, 230 trucks, and 40 mechanized. Would be 280 mechanized and 20 trucks if I replaced all the motorized divisions, just lacking mechanized as those just went into the production queue. About 301 Soft Attack, 65 hard attack/42 piercing, 22 air attack, and 509 breakthrough. Only 33 armor though, given the fact I'm using a super unoptimized medium tank design. I could add a lot more armor and breakthrough for about 6 more IC per tank, as well as get the division up to 8km/h. As it stands, I was able to mulch through everything thrown my way during a "late" WW2 in 1940, using 8 tank divisions. I could have 21 ready to go for Barbarossa, if every last tank in my stockpiled is used, which is honestly way more than I usually play around with. As far as the production line itself, I have 20 factories on it. Making roughly 11.20 tanks a day, which means I get another tank division every month (not counting other equipment needs+training time). Really isn't need to add more factories, maybe another 5-10 if I went for improved and advanced medium tanks but the game will be over before they need to be used.
@Mr Quiz I personally don't use cavalry, save for offmap garrison support, though it can be useful in the very early stages of the game (think before 1941). If you want tanks, just build tank divisions rather than converting cavalry divisions over. Sounds like that person plays a lot of multiplayer, where armor is usually useless on mediums due to the amount of piercing that players can and will stack on their divisions. In single player, which is what I play exclusively, armor on mediums is not useless. Enough of it will cause your tank divisions to take less damage in combat by halving the attacks coming in it at which is the point of tanks, taking less damage and protecting manpower. Regarding trucks, there is no one number you can assign for factories. You'll need trucks for a lot of things and best bet is to accidentally overproduce a few games in a row to get a feel of how much you need over underproducing, which is a direr problem and tells you less about what you need for production. 350 hours is not a lot. Keep playing and don't worry about making mistakes, experiment with what you're doing in each game and learn from that. Do be careful about listening to other people on the internet as some have bad takes. I'm a huge spreadsheet girl and take notes all the time, might want to try doing the same!
@Mr Quiz I would avoid using console commands, honestly. Especially given you're new, as more often than not the tendency to "fix" a mistake makes learning the game harder/longer. "Worth it" is an interesting concept. Heavy Tanks, from a pure singleplayer perspective, are not worth it given the AI won't build divisions that require all the armor a heavy tank provides to breakthrough. Medium tanks will be enough, unless Paradox updates the AI. But Heavy Tanks are "worth it" from a purely immersion perspective. I like my slow as fuck KV-1's and Tigers too! For you though, stick to making a few good medium divisions and learning how they work before using heavies. Also not a man. :P
I was playing China and managed to consolodate enough industry to build tanks (I scuffed the game by non-aggressioning with Japan and got to 100 civs) I rushed medium tanks and designed it with both hard and soft attack (medium gun, secondary gun, wet ammunition storage, maxed speed and armor for 1939, christie suspension) It slammed Japan, I held onto Bejing pretty well with the very few tanks I shat out, and they had drcent breakthrough Mediums are honestly the best when you need defense but have little industry, but does requires some time
People tend to forgot that in MP games heavy tanks are really great for defense against other tanks. Thats how heavy tank ussr work, the only way to stop the german medium tank swarm is by deploying heavy tanks which have higher defense, armor and over all stats. But in attack mediums are all over for the win
When Rimmy used to play hoi4 a lot, he tried using amphibous strat against the soviets. It turns out it was incredibly overpowered at the time and he sped across multiple river lines like it was nothing.
I think that the other thing to think about is manpower - and the fewer tanks needed in a division (for heavier tanks you need fewer as feedback said) you also need fewer men, which can be really important when considering small countries without the ability to core more states. The fourth reason to use tanks is that you get a better division/manpower ratio and because they’ll be doing most of the attacking hopefully, a good attacks/manpower ratio and fewer losses. Attacking with infantry or even motorized is just so expensive in manpower terms and its night and day when compared to tanks
Chaffee and Valentine XI irl - light and light infantry tanks that can give medium tanks before Panther a run on their money. Late WWII light tanks in the game - no armor, no gun, price of a medium tank.
It's worth noting that reliability affects the chances units will break down and half to be replaced. I try to keep mine as high as possible and never go under 80%
Super heavy tank sounds like it would be good to use in its own separate division with a few infantry and park them on your boarders for defense. With 100% hardness no soft attack will be able to Penatrate your boarders giving you one less thing to worry about.
TLDR at the bottom Lights were the best choice when no step back came out because they were so cheap and that little bit of armour from a light tank battalion slapped on all of your divisions was a great help. However with the balance changes and the introduction of partial piercing for land units I can confidently say that the small armour and hardness bonus from light tanks is now no worth the albeit small production cost. It is now much more effective in terms of cost/effectiveness to instead make Medium tanks supported by Mot/Cav (and later Mechanised) to perform breakthroughs or to create Medium TD's that you spread across your divisions for defence. Light and Heavy tanks do certainly have their place however but it is more situational. Lights are better for colonial powers such as UK or France who may want tanks to support their units overseas or to provide quick tanks to use on exploitation divisions which are designed to exploit breakthroughs to achieve encirclement rather than to achieve the breakthrough in the first place. Heavies with their high fire power and fort attack buff are great at tackling fortified enemy defensive lines. There is a debate that can be had on Whether Heavies are actually worth it for that role considering other things such as engineers can provide the same bonuses cheaper as a support battalion however the armour/hardness/breakthrough bonuses of the heavy tank cannot be ignored. Alot of this choice of course comes down to the industrial and manpower capabilities of whatever nation you are playing however if you are playing a nation that does not have the industry to field a sufficient amount of Medium tanks but may have enough for light tanks it is often better for you to use that industry on cheaper weapons/equipment that can provide more necessary support. It is important to consider that if you are low on manpower then tanks of any kind could actually be a good substitute, using tank divisions and sacrificing industry instead of manpower to supplement the fire-power of your standard divisions. TLDR 1. Light tanks use to be best but they are not anymore 2. Medium tanks are best for cost effectiveness. 3. Light tanks are best at supporting divisions in rough terrain and for early game exploitation. 4. Heavy tanks are best at breaking through fortified lines 5. If you are a poor nation don't build tanks, not usually worth it. 6. You can use tanks to substitute a lack of manpower if you have the industry to spend.
You can offset super heavy terrain penalties by putting them in divisions with units that have bonuses. Super heavy tanks are also really slow so: leg infantry. This can give you an armored... special forces division with bizarre levels of armor and hardness. They are effective but the issue with them is the techs you need for super heavies. Really, what happens for me many times is I don't have any special forces tech until late and I just run out of things to research, so I get some mountaineers and... oh hey, super heavy tanks, alright.
For me the decision is always country based. If I'm playing a country with a big industry and limited manpower (like France), I'm going heavies because I want the most bang for my buck. If I'm trying to cover a massive front line and have fuel resources to spend (like the Soviets) I'm going light because I just need numbers. If I'm going blitzkrieg (aka Germany), I'm going mediums because it's the most balanced approach where you still have powerful tanks to take advantage of bonuses, but also the numbers to make it worth while. This is theoretically the real life priorities these countries had too. The only thing I don't do is mix tanks, because I already devoted my resources to one model. The only exception is when I go lights, I switch over to mediums mid-late war and then turn my leftover lights into my recon.
That's just the hull. It, like most tanks, just has a driver and radio operator/machine gunner. The turret (for the SH) add either 3 or 4 people to the crew.
@@jasonhenry8067 Yes. Though I'm not really sure why you'd ask that since an armored division's limiting factors are gonna be your industry (how many military factories you have/can dedicate to producing tanks) and supply
I some times like to add a single super heavy to a template and make no more than 1 of them to break really key important desert tiles that might have a fort. their extra armour can tip the division into unpierceable, combined correctly with mech and heavies for crazy hardness and loads of firepower. But most the time i just build some medium or self propelled arty (for the extra % soft attack) divs with good air support. they can just be everywhere i need them and do it quicker.
Use Super heavy tank, tank destroyer, spaa, and spg divisions as a rapid response force. Their defensive ability is insane. Quickly plug gaps and reinforce weakpoints in the line.
I feel like SHT should be use along the lines of railart. You make 1 big fat SHT division and use it to penetrate a strategic point in the defenses and then use strategic redeployment to maneuver it to another point to be broke.
one thing unmentioned is that superheavy have arty as well. (at least in base game) that thing had something like double the soft slapping power of heavy arty, and double the hardness, so if you wanted to keep someone like stalin in his siberia, you had a literally 1 of those + one mechanized as a wall. 3 divs? 30? non issue just stays there and slaps.
I know it´s just a methaphor but the example regarding dnd with heavier armor making it so when you take damage you take less is wrong(definetly for the 5th but also I think for earlier editions), the heavier armor reduce the chance of you taking damage but it doesn´t matter if you wear armor or are naked for the purpose of how much.
@@matek11 I'm not sure how it really works, but feedback described it as when you take damage you take less, so a bit like a how resistend you ate to damage.
Well I mean statistically it does make you take less damage on average since you're getting hit less right? every 17 or lower against plate will be damage that would have otherwise been taken with a lower ac.
One of the things that I find hard to accept from Feedback is this ideology that he has about movement speed in Tanks not being relevant at all. I know he doesn't mean it exactly as I said above, but his consistency of asking viewers to ignore movement stats makes it feel as if movement isnt important at all for tank divisions which isnt true based on my experience in single player situations. Like... yeah, it probably isnt as important as MPs? But on how many nations where you can get the full army group worth of tank divisions and battle plan you way through victory? Tanks imo need speed to do those encirclements and move around the battlefield to either attank where breakthroughs are possible or where defense is weakening... and feedback's doctrine of tank division with speed same as infantry... probably wouldn't cut it
Speed would matter a lot more but generally speaking, if youre upgrading the engines then youll get enough speed to make encirclements. In SP, if you can push the entire frontline with tanks, it doesnt matter if theyre not faster than infantry, since youll win the battles regardless. In MP its also a matter of being able to pierce the other tank divisions and the other players infantry to not pierce your tanks. 6-8kph is more than enough and you get there by upgrading your engines and putting a few points extra in them on the designer. Ignoring the penalties in these situations is more around the idea that theres just not a good, convenient way to overcome them. All tanks will suck ass pushing in the Soviet marshes, no matter how speedy the unit is, for a quick example. This is due to how you can pin tiles in the game. You need superior stats to not lose those battles while your side divisions move forward uncontested since they also cannot lose their battles. Speedy tanks are more of a niche, since even if theyre the fastest possible unit, if they cannot hold the divisions encircled, it doesnt matter how much they can encircle.
Dave is British, Britain made ridiculous amount of Churchill tank in WW2, the slow, heavy armour infantry tank, that’s how British people think. If you ask Tommy he’s gonna give you German tank designs
How I like to do it is: 1936 to... say about 1942, it's purely Light Tanks. Just having like 30-40 freaking factories purely on Light Tank and spamming out crap ton of them. I also make the Light Tank divisions ridiculously big, like up-to 40-50 width. By 1941-42, as Germany at least, I have about 30-40 of these massive divisions. Then, I start slowly adding Medium tanks to the divisions. I usually use the very late version of Medium tank, or the one before that if it isn't 1943 yet (or do they unlock at 1942? Kinda forgot). That's when the AI's armor divisions can actually break my infantry, so I need actual armor in my tank divisions instead of "69420 soft attack go brrrrrrr"
You can have like 21 Div (6 Medium Tank + 3 Truck) in 1940 if you switch from Light to Medium in 1938. If your industry is build up enough, you can change the armor, gun, etc. to welded, medium gun, etc. and trade tungsten and chrome with Sweden.
Wasn't until this video that I noticed that the 40's medium tank chassis uses less steel than the 41's light tank chassis. That seems wrong somehow, but will factor into my decision making when deciding if I have the steel to make mediums
Personally I make tank divisions that are 4medium 1 light, and the armored recon support. This with 3 or 4 half track infantry divisions makes the numbers of tanks similar to real life panzer divisions. I also find this division setup is just solid all around and works in almost any situation. The one downside is that the organization will be right around 30%, so you just half to be careful with chain attacking.
4:00 the difference between 80 and 85 hardness is actually quite significant, and not "barely a difference." Because of the way math works, going from 80 to 85 hardness will reduce the soft attack damage you take by 25%, which is a much bigger difference than 5%. In practice it won't be that big since it's averaged across the division, but it's far more significant than it looks. As for terrain penalties, haha double adaptable go brrrr.
Not really. You forgot that you will also have motorized divisions in there which will massively decrease the hardness. So 80 to 85 is not that high difference, unless you use mechanizied inf which comes too late.
What if you do pure tank/sp artillery division? Then the hardness difference really does come in. A lot of people would say a pure tank/sp artillery division is a bad idea, but I think it works as a static attacker. Using support attacks instead of actually advancing to take enemy territory, a pure tank division can get away with having 3.6 org, because it breaks enemy divisions so easily and never suffers the org hit from taking territory. Use the heavy tanks to win the battle and the trucks/infantry to take the territory.
@@J7Handle Very bad idea IMO. Sure, might work against AI, but anything works against AI even on max diff if you have some experience with the game and dont play luxemburg TBH.
@@fridericusrex6289 true, I've not played against players. So I have no experience to draw on for that. But maximizing soft attack with minimal regard to defense or breakthrough has worked better against the AI than anything else I do. Now that I know having more defense/ breakthrough than the enemy has attack is pointless, I know that in theory, maximizing defense/breakthrough is never the correct strat against either players or AI, and that getting just the right amount of defense or breakthrough to minimize damage received is the correct strat. Of course, players concentrate their firepower much more effectively than AI, so when fighting against players you should go for much more breakthrough/defense than against the AI. Another thing I can determine should work in theory. If you can add 10% attack to a division without increasing combat width, that division template should win battles _at least_ 10% faster than before, meaning it only requires at most 90% as much org as before in order to be worth it. Also, divisions with higher attack and less org generally suffer less attrition and casualties, because both of those depend on the duration of the battle. More attack = shorter duration = fewer casualties and less attrition. If I were up against another player, my priority would be to inflict casualties and not to risk attempting large encirclements. I might even make a fighting retreat while focusing on breaking my opponent's offensive divisions. Actually, a good strat for that would be tank destroyer divisions.
@@J7Handle There are situations where you want lot of attack, eg push through enemy heavy defense lines, eg if allies try to fortify france, but usually people do just arty + inf. Division with full tanks and SP arty lacks org to be effective and is very very expensive. Pushing through entrenchd fortified line? Sure. But thats not meta anyways. And if you have acess to resources to build full tank divs, prob better to spam some cheaper divisions and lot of air. As for maxing def. Well usually you max HP and org as well. Those two are quite important for defense. A division which has only rifles and even lacks equipment and doesnt have any attack at all is still valuable if it has org. Also your enemy can attack your one div with multiple ones. That comes back to the 20 vs 40 width meta. Now width is less important so you can make larger divisions which will have lot of stats or smaller divs with less attack and def, but more of them in combat. Both has pros and cons. Air is deciding factor for mp anyway I think.
Im trying to get all the achievements, so all my playthroughs recently are with small countries without the industry for tanks. By the time I get to tanks, it's always like 1950 and I just use super expensive moderns cause I'll have conquered the world lol.
Well if you wanna do a tank game with a minor you can pick Canada or México (Although with México you have to annex centroamérica and the caribe for extra resourses and some industry)
Indeed. I just never find myself using them, because I convert old tank models into SPG/SPAA. Changing the tracks will just make the conversion more expensive.
Personally I rarely prioritize tanks, I usually just get couple of light tank divisions with sonic speed to do encirclements. I just put 2 to 5 factories on tanks and leave them there with the trains, this way I can use the factories and to produce more expensive planes in bigger numbers. Also because the AI barely builds any tanks so you don't really need better tanks, just infantry/artillery and CAS
Lights are definetely viable for rushing early game wars in mainland Europe before nations have got their medium tanks ready. But once 1940 comes around you need to have achieved a win condition or your lack of medium tank production will cause you to drop off quickly and get stomped. Honestly a risky play that can catch a lot of people off guard.
It seems to me that it makes sense to team up a few medium tank divisions with some light tank or motorized divisions. Use the light tanks or motorized to speed ahead and surround enemy units and bring in the medium to break those surrounded units or deal with anything the light tanks or motorized can't deal with.
Something interesting I found is that you can make op soft attack light tanks where you put medium howitzer 2 with a fixed chassis and set it to SPA and make it as cheep as possible with easy maintenance, wheeled suspension instead of tracked, and just enough armor so that hopefully they don’t get pierced by early game AA. You can get like 2k soft attack divisions in 1940 if you set up your generals right and get some training on the divisions and they will melt infantry and is basically a more expensive rocket artillery with better stats. It can be nice if you are playing like Germany or Russia where you get a lot of light tanks throughout the game that you can retrofit into something more useful Also wrote this before he went over the fixed cannons and stuff nvm
Of course, the answer of what to produce depends on how you plan to use them, who your opponents will be and what period of the war it is. Concentrated mobile divisions, followed up by infantry, or space marines? Early war when you don’t face many tanks or AT on Inf, or late war when your enemies will have more AT and tanks? Will you have air superiority or be getting hammered with CAS? Where are you fighting (Europe, Asia, Africa)? This tells you what each type does best. Next step is matching that to what the need is.
I have a really weird doctrine: my infantry and tanks pierce the front lines and then the tanks will incircle the unites. However most of the damage is done by the infantry and so the tanks can only fight disorganized units. That is why I really like medium tanks with emphasis on mobility (I should really switch to light ones).
1-Medium chassis But light turret. 2- Heavy chassis But medium turret or L. turret Paradox should Integrate armored cars to the tank designer(Maybe even mechanized trucks too).
Depends on the country I'm playing and strategy. Light tank division with motorized to hit weak infantry lines and rapid break outs. Heavy with mechanized to rofl stomp anything and steady push. Medium tank with motorized is the generic one I use for lots of different roles.
Depends on who you play. Mediums unless you have limited industry or everywhere you'll be fighting is mountains and jungle (Italy, Africa, South America)
Played a game recently where I made a heavy specifically to add to baseline infantry divisions (playing as America, world domination). So 4km, good reliability, and as much armor as possible. These infantry divisions were unpierceable by the majority of divisions I encountered. Optimal? Not really. Effective? Extremely.
I play Heavy Tank Germany for the same as reason the mustache man, they're fuel efficient thus I can bring more CAS and more Fighters overall that can impact far more than tanks in the battlefield. Usually infantry, green air and CAS is enough to do a WC without any problems. You don't even need tanks, I do them because I'm a roleplayer after I got good at the game. For context I did a recent WC with Finland only using tanks lategame 1946, air is far more impactable than any unit, can even go as saying that you can WC with 10width with artillery and anti-air with CAS support.
I don't understand why you didn't start the comparison with Interwar. Sure, it's not what most are building but it WOULD be a direct technical comparison of tank by tech lvl.
I like lights and mediums, lights because of the insane speed you can stack on them, and mediums because of the good balance between Breakthrough, Speed, Hardness and Production cost
Lights for recon, when i just wanna pad some early game armour on infantry, Light SPG's are also pretty good early, but i mainly play as turkey where basic lights are unlocked, and med/heavies aren't, and you have practically no military factories at the start of the game Medium for pretty much all serious armour later on, the cost difference being as small as it is, and the armour/BT being significantly better once you add turrets. I've never built a heavy tank, captured some sure but never built a single one, only place i could see them as useful would be as an infantry div flame tank, the production cost is too prohibitive, and they're too slow for anything else
Fine review of stats. Tactically, any sort of tank can work, although the sort of tank you build is one that supports the way you right, where you fight. Sooo, heavies and super H to knock down forts, lights for speed, amphibious for water, and mediums to a balanced approach. Analysis doesn’t take into account speed, which along with hardness is the whole reason to build a tank. If you’re not using mobility with your tanks, you’re missing out on the whole point.
I wish they had heavier artillery pieces for heavy SPGs. I want a heavy, fixed superstructure SPG that's basically just a Karl-Gerät so I can make some unholy division with like 2k soft attack that just strength deletes units.
I think the only weakness with this analysis is that in a normal game you are going to try to research the best chassis for your tank as soon as possible, but light tanks only go to 1941. If you manage your research most countries can have 1943 chassis by 1942 if they eat a year ahead of time penalty on the 1938 and 1940 chassis and time whatever 100% armor bonus their tree has for the 1943 chassis. Germany/USSR are even better off since they get their own bonuses plus a research bonus from Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Even if your guns are crap having the latest chassis means you can start making tanks with that chassis and start upgrading already built tanks to better guns as you get them. Light tanks also start getting demolished by normal infantry once the enemy has any AT/AA or the passive infantry piercing tech. The AI seems to prefer doing AT in some of their infantry divisions, so I usually find light tanks barely work against major countries in SP after 1942 or so. Their hardness might be similar to mediums but their armor is way less so that doesn't matter if the enemy can 75% or 100% pierce them. On the other hand up to date mediums and heavies will generally stand up to towed AT of the same tech level. As an aside, I never considered a heavy howitzer on a medium tank could be SP Artillery, I should try that sometime.
Medium tank destroyers with t2 heavy cannons with reliability mods. Move to hybrid engine late game with extra bonus to defense. You NEED a maintenance company 2 though. Love these. Super hard to kill.
For me, I use heavies, because I’m not good at micromanaging lots of tank divisions. So I make a handful of really powerful heavy tanks instead of loads of mediums or lights
I usually trying to make armored army or two, which i use to break the frontline and encircle enemy. 6-8 medium armored divs with mech infantry and motorized artillery to break front, 8-10 light with mot. infantry to actually run into a breach and make encirclement and others like mech infantry with SPGs or mot. or cav (depends on production and stockpile reserves) to hold enemy reserves, cover flanks, if they try to cut my pocket off and encircle breakthrough forces. Make hevies late game mostly if i have lots of factories and resources to brake forts or to listen Prussia gloria. Would be happy to hear your thoughts on this🙂
Because of the hardness i would put a few super tanks with light tanks (either destroyers or artilery) and motorized or cavalary or Just special forces. You Will end up with Just a few super tanks to build and you can focus on making light tanks as cheap as you want. You can be impenetrable, have tons of soft attack and hard attack and be flexible on most terrain because of special forces and because you Will have Just a few super heavy tank battalions So penalties Will be reduced. This division can eat a lot of supply So you Will not need more than Just a few divisions and, while slow, they can hit for a lot of dmg. Will try this on Soviets and try world conquest with those divisions.
i tested hardness in game , i had a 25 wide tank div. ONLY TANK , and run into only infantry men whitout amor ... i lost so many tanks , i dk but i think hardness is buggd ?
Infantry still has some hard attack, And a only tanks division while having high hardness will have VERY LOW HP. Which means it takes big losses even if the enemy has low attack.
one way to ilustrate 80 85 95 hardness jumps , mediums get 25% less damage from Soft attack then lights , and heavies take 34% what mediums take , 5% from 0 dont seams like a lot but closer you get to 100% the bigger impact these small numbers have , Superheavies with 100% are immune to soft attack RPG games ftw
That math is wrong A medium takes 3 times as much damage as a heavy from Soft A light takes 4 times as much damage as a heavy from Soft A light takes 33% more damage than a medium from Soft if a heavy takes 10 Soft damage, a medium would take 30 and a light 40
@@MoonyRuney if you go at any website who does calculations for you "more then" "less then" , you will see i am right , this is common misconception i see on people with "less then" and "more then" , politicians often use that to make something seam bigger then it seams , or smaller then it is.
@@VarenvelDarakus Then explain why my reasoning is, because I do not see how you can say that heavies "take half of what mediums take" when the numbers are 85% and 95%. Heavies take 5% soft attack damage, Mediums take 15% soft attack damage, and Lights take 20% soft attack damage.
I find that light tanks are the only viable choice with minor nations (I usually play Belgium or the Netherlands) early on due to resource constraints (not much steel, and usually no chromium), with the exception of Turkey because Turkey can enter WWII whenever it wants in Hoi4 so you have more than enough time to build up mil factories to churn out a crap ton of medium tank divisions and heavy tank divisions and also you have A LOT of chromium and steel. I wonder how light tanks compare to mechanized (not motorized) in terms of cost effectiveness?
I tend to use heavy tank destroyers as a support company for my main hold the line defense type divisions. In my divisions spectialized for attack I like wheeled light tanks with motorized infantry.
Dave I love ya but that's not how heavy armor works in DnD it usually adds your AC which is the stat that let's you know if you even hit, something with high AC is either super agile or super armored
Hmm I hadn't considered that I could design my light tanks in a way to get more armor and breakthrough. I've been blindly following guides for my first 300 hours of game time. Maybe time to experiment
what i don't understand is why would you get a lower production cost for lower reliability because i thought reliability is just the likelyhood for your equipment to breakdown and if you're decreasing reliability then the production cost would be lost because you'd have to produce more.
Call me crazy but a small full superheavy tank division (less tan 10 width) with engineer company and anti-air support company maybe the ideal defense troop with his 100% hardness against most AI divisions specially if you can have green air and 10L fort.
-100% attack for super heavies on amphibious invasions. I'm picturing a Maus driving off a battleship and nose diving into the ocean
It is conducting anti submarine warfare operations
Or the strait of Messina, the thing just sinks
IS-7 is actually super heavy tank in this game as well, 70 tons is just a bit overweight, so technically it’s still doable in naval invasion
Found Nemo though...
Your wrong. A maus wouldn't drive off a battle ship cause the moment it went onto the ship, the battle ship would nose dive into the ocean.
The only true tanks are 50 width super heavy tank divisions
Cries in supply*
Nothing but Super Heavies. No Mech, no Motorized, just Super Heavies!
@@K_-_-_-_K just eat the tires
@@Chorutowo MMMMMMM DELICIOUS RUBBER
Cries in Org
In real life doctrine you only need a few heavy tank divisions to break focal points, some light tank divisions to fight in special terrain such as desert and swamp (and use them to support infantry as well), and you make as many medium tank divisions as possible, that’s how M4 Sherman and T-34 became the most produced tanks during the war.
In real life doctrine it is not consistent whatsoever and only comes down to the nation you are a part of, the problems they face, and the solutions they come up with. If your enemy is full of mechanized divisions of medium weight chassis with only small amounts of heavy tanks, then augmenting your own regiments with dedicated anti-tank solutions like the gun carriage designs of the Jackson will be plenty enough for entrenching your own troops.
Reserving heavy tanks to breakthrough pushes was also German tactics theory based on Guderian's view of lightning war and it's application to armor, but fell short as communication technology improved and became more widely available and logistical strain set in. It had no bearing on the M4 or T-34, as those tanks were produced for very different reasons. The M4 was incredibly efficient production wise but was also easy to fit on transports to send across to the theaters, while the T-34 was quick to produce and was simply shoveled out as Russia was losing equipment and tanks quickly so they needed replacements and didn't have time to set up efficient logistics infrastructure to repair the damaged tanks they had to an operational level.
@@AstinCrowyou got everything wrong, during the early war everyone uses light tanks, 38t, Panzer I, Panzer II, A-20, T-26, Cruiser, Crusader, etc., only small amount of heavy tanks like KV-1. Later in the war everyone upgraded to medium tanks, the Germans mostly use Panzer III, Panzer IV, Panther as well.
If you want to argue about different doctrine, Britain is the one you should talk about, they made ridiculous amount of Churchill infantry tanks, it’s basically heavy tanks in an infantry division, or “space marine” in hoi4 terms. But even that, Britain went with American M4 Sherman as well when they got supplied with it, Churchill tanks became like support tanks. Everyone is roughly the same in the tank business.
@@AstinCrow t-34 was not quick to produce they just cut corners.
@@kindasimpson9704xcept you are attributing tank design to HOI4 with classifying everything as light tanks, medium tanks, and heavy tanks without even considering the doctrines they were designed for. What constituted the different designations was entirely dependant on the users, with Japan referring to the I-Go Type 89 as a medium tank at 12 tons (the Panzer III was twice as much and the M4 three times) and Germany called the Panther tank a medium (despite weighing more than even the Jumbo Sherman heavy tank). The British aren't the exception, but are just as average with everyone else in terms of universal standardization of tank generalizations, they just didn't try to hide their differences.
Not to mention, the only reason why light tanks were common in the first place was because of the FT Renault and the progression of armor development. Medium tanks in the 1920s and early 30s were incredibly complicated for little benefit and heavy tanks were either testbed designs, like the Neubaufahrzeug, or designs that were just too difficult to produce in large numbers, like the KV-1. It had nothing to do with doctrines, again, as both Germany AND Russia saw a need for heavy armor immediately and wanted to field massive amounts of them.
Mediums exploded in popularity for very different reasons for each. The German medium tanks being used as the chassis for support guns as well as providing heavier artillery while lighter tanks were designed for countering lighter armored vehicles and infantry.
The Panzer III, which was lighter by a few tons compared to the IV, was at first the dedicated AFV as they believed the 5cm gun with its superior firerate would defeat enemy armor of the era, as well as its speed to compete with British and French designs. The IV was moreso a turreted support gun with its original intended use and only became the dedicated AFV after the longer 7,5cm gun and higher velocity ammo were designed to defeat the Soviet heavy tanks in Barbarossa.
These comparisons cannot be made for the M4 Sherman or T-34, with the former continuing to be used as both an infantry support tank as well as a dedicated AFV and the latter being designed from the ground up to combat enemy armor. The disparity between roles of different tanks called the same class is why we can't just slap on a role for them and our hindsight really fucks up further classification. How is the Panzer III flamm considered a medium tank when it doesn't have an armament capable of harming enemy tanks? How do you classify the I-Go, a very light medium tank by tonnage, the same way you do a M4A2 that weighs 20 extra tons? Why is the Panzer 38t, a tank clearly designed to fight other tanks as its primary role, be classified the same as the M5 Stuart, a tank designed to provide armored reconnaissance? Should the passage of time and progression of technology factor in?
When you look at the heavy tank situation as well, you can quickly deduce why the tanks were in fewer numbers comparatively. The Japanese straight up didn't prioritize tank development and would rather the steel be used elsewhere, as they didn't have much to go around. The Russians, on the other hand, needed tanks to produce and the still teething KVs were very difficult to manufacture. The Americans straight up saw no need to develop heavy tanks and only labelled what are in retrospect medium tanks as heavy tanks just for morale purposes. Hell, the M26 was reclassified after since America didn't need to keep up the façade. As for the Germans, they were constantly having resource shortages for the designated heavy tanks so they were never able to make the numbers they wanted for their Tigers. The Panther, if we count it as a heavy tank by weight and armor class, then that automatically bolsters the amount of heavy tanks Germany has and defeats the argument that they had few heavy tanks. However, that'd be an interpretation as the Germans designated the Panther as a medium tank, for whatever reason they were thinking of at the time.
Just look at MBTs nowadays and how varied they all are despite all having the same classification. That should make it evident that classifications are done based on individual doctrines, not golden rules or universal standards. It is only done in games like HOI4 because trying to actually simulate different tanks accurately would be a nightmare for the developers, so just grouping tanks together and slapping general stats is far easier and more understandable for the player.
@@12halo3 The T-34, a design that was in testing but showed promise, was a good stopgap at the time due to the armor being good enough to not render the tank cannon fodder and the overall layout and implementation of cast hulls and minimal welding resulted in a tank far easier to produce than anything else they had. This is compared to the KV-1s that had very long production times due to riveted armor and inefficient compartment layouts, as well as older T-70 light tanks that were already obsolete. Easier to produce projects like the IS series tanks wouldn't come out for a bit, so it was the obvious option to shove into mass production to halt the Nazi advance, getting more than a thousand units into service by the end of the same year it was accepted. So yeah, the design definitely was easier to produce and the cut corners just came down to minutiae.
11:42 ah yes, -1.5 breakthrough.
When attacking a position, the tank just drives backwards.
French tank designers be like
Look up the Archer tank destroyer, it literally driver in the opposite way the gun faces. Very annoying to play in war thunder!
France: „These are les meilleures stats honhon!“
@@veros9830 the thing is the playstyle. If you play it like "Imma do some 180 trickshots" it's actually fun
@@veros9830 Shoot and scoot
This is why we need more teachers like feedback in hoi 4. For new players and for players who are missing out on crucial information. He doesnt blast us with "spreadsheet" information. A simple, "Heres your question, Here are the answers, Here are the differences. Pros and Cons." Nice and simple!
I wont lie, My mutual respect for light tanks has rapidly gone up now thanks to feedback explaining on their small and limited potential. I appreciate that. Now i know what i could do with light tanks. Gonna do a few experiments with them with minor nations.
I did a few experiments myself with the light tanks and I saw that the best thing to do is to use them after a breakthrough which i made with medium and some light tanks while the enemy isn't protecting the whole front and just swarm the nearby cities this tactic is even better in late game because of speed also I usually have only a few of them as I make them quite cheap
@@stefansmiljanic1697 wouldnt motorized be better since they have much higher defense?
@@yagovmolotov5127 I presume its Motorized whit Light tanks (bult for speed).
as just motorized infantry even in armored (mechanized) will have problem if they hit anything.
you sort of need some light tank div to make the really efficient.
or as some nation would say when they saw a bunch of 1970 M113 armored personnel carrier rolling down the road (the early model only had a crewed MG not even a turret for self defense).
oh a shooting gallery.
In single player esspecially as germany light tanks are mad op
Mediums really are just the best IMO. Cheap and flexible, can't go wrong. I think people sleep on the interwar medium too. With torsion bar and ammo storage you can get it to over 80% reliability with decent armament. You can't make it very fast (maybe 5-6 kph) but you can give it 20-30 soft attack and 30ish breakthrough. Definitely passable for pre-1938.
Yeah but having less than 90% reliability is a no for me,unless u talk light tanks. Obviously this is a very personal view but a light tank with 70% reliability it's whatever,cheap to make and replace,but a medium with torsion bar(that raises the cost) and only gets it to 80%? You lost 100 tanks to attrition,but could have saved an extra 10/15 if u had better modules? And at the start of the game,so when u would be using interwar,10/15 tanks are about 2 weeks of your production basically stopped to resupply your 2/3 tank divisions (if u make 40/44 width). And that doesn't count for the tanks destroyed In combat that you won't recover because of low reliability.
Basically,what I'm trying to say is that if you make mediums from the start,either replace them as soon as you can (by rushing 1938 mediums immediately) or just use light tanks with a lot of armour to reduce the IC wasted on attrition.
@@jimmymfs4314 you can convert interwar medium to 1938 medium when you get them researchrd right?
@@veersavarkar5857at least until no step backward, which I have, I can't upgrade tanks from previous generations. Every upgrade requires the same "body"
Does that apply to Medium TD as well, running with the US tank destroyer bureau to crank them out for hard attack bonuses?
In singleplayer lights take the cake for me. You can build solid ones which dont even need tungsten or chromium. Two resources most nations would need to import. If you dont have to do that your economy will be reliefed which means you can invest more into air superiority and cas which are the best advantages you can have in the current patch.
Not only that. Cause of the very tiny diference in breakthrough lights with just enough armor so that 95% of the AIs units cant pierce them are just superior to mediums. You ll have more tanks which eat less supplies and fuel which do the job only a tiny bit worse than mediums but are even better in some terrains.
And since lights have their 2nd model already in 1936 they just laugh at the interwar medium. Id never build the latter. Its a worse, slower and more expensive tank than what 36 lights can be.
seriously, in order for Heavy and Super heavy to "makes sense" is to give player the option to put them on "support" with reduced unit number and stat (like light tank recon) but still give bonus on some terrain like against the fort without any other penalty....
the problem is we only had 5 support slots....
Mods go brrrr
It's same really with SPG, SPAA etc. For some reason most things are just frontline equipment.
@@FlinzPrime yes, especially when SP artillery for most places were only available in very limited numbers, especially early war
for example in 1940, the Germans only had all together 80 SPGs (42 Stug III + 38 StuPa I) for the invasion of France, tho i don't remember their distribution
likewise the French had 70 SP TD (Laffly W15T CC) but those were distributed to the ratio of one battery (eq to a company) per division, subordinated to the divisional artillery
I mean you don't need a lot of support slots for a siege breaker division.
@@tunganhnguyen909 Yeah like darkest hour which gives you 10.
To be fair, I rock full lights all the way, less tech needed and can be juiced up in armour and speed, you can spam ungodly amount of them and even go full armies with battleplan, they just clean house anyway
That happens because the AI doesn't build AT for their infantry divs at all.
Yeah, AT are a bummer. You can use masses of cheap LT to force the enemy into divesting factories for AT. A light economy might be easily owerwhelmed by this. Also, they are one of the best options for recon companies.
Works great with AI, but if you go againts a human player that does ATs, you're screwed. Tbf, I'm seens AI making ATs too actually
@@FlyWire2 is that correct? Ive definately come against enemy AI who could pierce my armoured lights
@@tunganhnguyen909 USSR AI makes at least light tanks that can pierce your light tanks as germany idk about AT tho
I used to troll my friend with the heavy tank destroyer with the super heavy gun as the united states, because if i remember correctly you can get the hard attack up to like 75, and the piercing to like 330, those tanks were mad expensive, but no other tank stood a chance against them
I’ve always used mediums because they feel the most balanced. Then super late game modern tanks because they’re OP.
I use mediums for much the same reason.
Some games as Germany, I'll make a few heavy tank divisions but that's more for my entertainment than actual need. It's quite easy to break through lines with just medium tank divisions, therefore the extra breakthrough heavy tanks provide goes unneeded, not to mention the inability of the AI to keep up with their piercing. Though the tactic of using heavies to make short breakthroughs and encircle a few divisions, which is what heavy tanks excel at doing, at a time does have merit.
@Mr Quiz Well, I've got a game going at the moment as Germany (1941) where I'm testing some naval stuff so it's not "ideal" land division builds but currently using a 30 width medium tank template that consists of:
1. 8x Medium Tanks, of which I'm using just the basic Pz. IV A you get as a free design from the tech focus with the Soviet Union. It's not anywhere near ideal, mind you, and at this point well out of date.
2. 6x Motorized. Was 7x Motorized but seeing as I just unlocked mechanized, I'm slowing switching over to that.
3. Support AA, Support Arty, Engineers+Motorized Recon, and a Maintenance company. I should probably ditch the engineers for flame tanks, just haven't built any yet. The engineers+recon are primarily for movement bonuses, though the defense on my tank divisions isn't terrible with that extra entrenchment. Germany can afford to be a little wasteful with IC though!
This division holds 400 medium tanks, 230 trucks, and 40 mechanized. Would be 280 mechanized and 20 trucks if I replaced all the motorized divisions, just lacking mechanized as those just went into the production queue.
About 301 Soft Attack, 65 hard attack/42 piercing, 22 air attack, and 509 breakthrough. Only 33 armor though, given the fact I'm using a super unoptimized medium tank design. I could add a lot more armor and breakthrough for about 6 more IC per tank, as well as get the division up to 8km/h. As it stands, I was able to mulch through everything thrown my way during a "late" WW2 in 1940, using 8 tank divisions. I could have 21 ready to go for Barbarossa, if every last tank in my stockpiled is used, which is honestly way more than I usually play around with.
As far as the production line itself, I have 20 factories on it. Making roughly 11.20 tanks a day, which means I get another tank division every month (not counting other equipment needs+training time). Really isn't need to add more factories, maybe another 5-10 if I went for improved and advanced medium tanks but the game will be over before they need to be used.
@Mr Quiz I personally don't use cavalry, save for offmap garrison support, though it can be useful in the very early stages of the game (think before 1941). If you want tanks, just build tank divisions rather than converting cavalry divisions over.
Sounds like that person plays a lot of multiplayer, where armor is usually useless on mediums due to the amount of piercing that players can and will stack on their divisions. In single player, which is what I play exclusively, armor on mediums is not useless. Enough of it will cause your tank divisions to take less damage in combat by halving the attacks coming in it at which is the point of tanks, taking less damage and protecting manpower.
Regarding trucks, there is no one number you can assign for factories. You'll need trucks for a lot of things and best bet is to accidentally overproduce a few games in a row to get a feel of how much you need over underproducing, which is a direr problem and tells you less about what you need for production.
350 hours is not a lot. Keep playing and don't worry about making mistakes, experiment with what you're doing in each game and learn from that. Do be careful about listening to other people on the internet as some have bad takes. I'm a huge spreadsheet girl and take notes all the time, might want to try doing the same!
@Mr Quiz I would avoid using console commands, honestly. Especially given you're new, as more often than not the tendency to "fix" a mistake makes learning the game harder/longer.
"Worth it" is an interesting concept. Heavy Tanks, from a pure singleplayer perspective, are not worth it given the AI won't build divisions that require all the armor a heavy tank provides to breakthrough. Medium tanks will be enough, unless Paradox updates the AI. But Heavy Tanks are "worth it" from a purely immersion perspective. I like my slow as fuck KV-1's and Tigers too! For you though, stick to making a few good medium divisions and learning how they work before using heavies.
Also not a man. :P
I was playing China and managed to consolodate enough industry to build tanks (I scuffed the game by non-aggressioning with Japan and got to 100 civs)
I rushed medium tanks and designed it with both hard and soft attack (medium gun, secondary gun, wet ammunition storage, maxed speed and armor for 1939, christie suspension)
It slammed Japan, I held onto Bejing pretty well with the very few tanks I shat out, and they had drcent breakthrough
Mediums are honestly the best when you need defense but have little industry, but does requires some time
Been loving the content since the new year. Thanks for being so informative!
Glad you enjoy it!🥰🥰🥰
People tend to forgot that in MP games heavy tanks are really great for defense against other tanks. Thats how heavy tank ussr work, the only way to stop the german medium tank swarm is by deploying heavy tanks which have higher defense, armor and over all stats. But in attack mediums are all over for the win
My friends do German heavy tanks with like 50 ic and mid 1940 barb, clicks the shit of my ass
Yeah you need stats Alta for mp
When Rimmy used to play hoi4 a lot, he tried using amphibous strat against the soviets. It turns out it was incredibly overpowered at the time and he sped across multiple river lines like it was nothing.
I think that the other thing to think about is manpower - and the fewer tanks needed in a division (for heavier tanks you need fewer as feedback said) you also need fewer men, which can be really important when considering small countries without the ability to core more states. The fourth reason to use tanks is that you get a better division/manpower ratio and because they’ll be doing most of the attacking hopefully, a good attacks/manpower ratio and fewer losses. Attacking with infantry or even motorized is just so expensive in manpower terms and its night and day when compared to tanks
Chaffee and Valentine XI irl - light and light infantry tanks that can give medium tanks before Panther a run on their money.
Late WWII light tanks in the game - no armor, no gun, price of a medium tank.
It's worth noting that reliability affects the chances units will break down and half to be replaced. I try to keep mine as high as possible and never go under 80%
80% is still pretty low tbh. I always never go 90% below.
Super heavy tank sounds like it would be good to use in its own separate division with a few infantry and park them on your boarders for defense. With 100% hardness no soft attack will be able to Penatrate your boarders giving you one less thing to worry about.
Then they make divisions with only AT guns/tanks to kill you
hardness averages out for the division
It wont be 100% hardness if theres infantry in the division
Also that’s what we call an “Space Marine” division in mp and it is banned
Ah yes,more reasons to state that any MP that outright bans legal in game options isn't worth playing on.
Me and the bois using super heavy tanks for supression.
TLDR at the bottom
Lights were the best choice when no step back came out because they were so cheap and that little bit of armour from a light tank battalion slapped on all of your divisions was a great help. However with the balance changes and the introduction of partial piercing for land units I can confidently say that the small armour and hardness bonus from light tanks is now no worth the albeit small production cost.
It is now much more effective in terms of cost/effectiveness to instead make Medium tanks supported by Mot/Cav (and later Mechanised) to perform breakthroughs or to create Medium TD's that you spread across your divisions for defence.
Light and Heavy tanks do certainly have their place however but it is more situational. Lights are better for colonial powers such as UK or France who may want tanks to support their units overseas or to provide quick tanks to use on exploitation divisions which are designed to exploit breakthroughs to achieve encirclement rather than to achieve the breakthrough in the first place.
Heavies with their high fire power and fort attack buff are great at tackling fortified enemy defensive lines. There is a debate that can be had on Whether Heavies are actually worth it for that role considering other things such as engineers can provide the same bonuses cheaper as a support battalion however the armour/hardness/breakthrough bonuses of the heavy tank cannot be ignored.
Alot of this choice of course comes down to the industrial and manpower capabilities of whatever nation you are playing however if you are playing a nation that does not have the industry to field a sufficient amount of Medium tanks but may have enough for light tanks it is often better for you to use that industry on cheaper weapons/equipment that can provide more necessary support.
It is important to consider that if you are low on manpower then tanks of any kind could actually be a good substitute, using tank divisions and sacrificing industry instead of manpower to supplement the fire-power of your standard divisions.
TLDR
1. Light tanks use to be best but they are not anymore
2. Medium tanks are best for cost effectiveness.
3. Light tanks are best at supporting divisions in rough terrain and for early game exploitation.
4. Heavy tanks are best at breaking through fortified lines
5. If you are a poor nation don't build tanks, not usually worth it.
6. You can use tanks to substitute a lack of manpower if you have the industry to spend.
You can offset super heavy terrain penalties by putting them in divisions with units that have bonuses. Super heavy tanks are also really slow so: leg infantry. This can give you an armored... special forces division with bizarre levels of armor and hardness. They are effective but the issue with them is the techs you need for super heavies. Really, what happens for me many times is I don't have any special forces tech until late and I just run out of things to research, so I get some mountaineers and... oh hey, super heavy tanks, alright.
I remember the good old before no step back tanks, when my light tanks were so op I rushed the world conquest in 1936
For me the decision is always country based. If I'm playing a country with a big industry and limited manpower (like France), I'm going heavies because I want the most bang for my buck. If I'm trying to cover a massive front line and have fuel resources to spend (like the Soviets) I'm going light because I just need numbers. If I'm going blitzkrieg (aka Germany), I'm going mediums because it's the most balanced approach where you still have powerful tanks to take advantage of bonuses, but also the numbers to make it worth while. This is theoretically the real life priorities these countries had too. The only thing I don't do is mix tanks, because I already devoted my resources to one model. The only exception is when I go lights, I switch over to mediums mid-late war and then turn my leftover lights into my recon.
Nobody is going to talk about the fact that the whole Maus is conducted by only 2 guys?
That's just the hull. It, like most tanks, just has a driver and radio operator/machine gunner. The turret (for the SH) add either 3 or 4 people to the crew.
@@rileyknapp5318 does that add to the manpower requirement for the division?
@@jasonhenry8067 Yes. Though I'm not really sure why you'd ask that since an armored division's limiting factors are gonna be your industry (how many military factories you have/can dedicate to producing tanks) and supply
I would love to see divisions designed specifically to get maximum overruns
I some times like to add a single super heavy to a template and make no more than 1 of them to break really key important desert tiles that might have a fort. their extra armour can tip the division into unpierceable, combined correctly with mech and heavies for crazy hardness and loads of firepower.
But most the time i just build some medium or self propelled arty (for the extra % soft attack) divs with good air support. they can just be everywhere i need them and do it quicker.
Use Super heavy tank, tank destroyer, spaa, and spg divisions as a rapid response force. Their defensive ability is insane.
Quickly plug gaps and reinforce weakpoints in the line.
I feel like SHT should be use along the lines of railart. You make 1 big fat SHT division and use it to penetrate a strategic point in the defenses and then use strategic redeployment to maneuver it to another point to be broke.
I once made 10 all super heavy battalions, it was hilarious
one thing unmentioned is that superheavy have arty as well. (at least in base game) that thing had something like double the soft slapping power of heavy arty, and double the hardness, so if you wanted to keep someone like stalin in his siberia, you had a literally 1 of those + one mechanized as a wall. 3 divs? 30? non issue just stays there and slaps.
I know it´s just a methaphor but the example regarding dnd with heavier armor making it so when you take damage you take less is wrong(definetly for the 5th but also I think for earlier editions), the heavier armor reduce the chance of you taking damage but it doesn´t matter if you wear armor or are naked for the purpose of how much.
But isn't breakthrough working the same way? I thought it lets you AVOID taking dmg
@@matek11 I'm not sure how it really works, but feedback described it as when you take damage you take less, so a bit like a how resistend you ate to damage.
Well I mean statistically it does make you take less damage on average since you're getting hit less right? every 17 or lower against plate will be damage that would have otherwise been taken with a lower ac.
One of the things that I find hard to accept from Feedback is this ideology that he has about movement speed in Tanks not being relevant at all. I know he doesn't mean it exactly as I said above, but his consistency of asking viewers to ignore movement stats makes it feel as if movement isnt important at all for tank divisions which isnt true based on my experience in single player situations.
Like... yeah, it probably isnt as important as MPs? But on how many nations where you can get the full army group worth of tank divisions and battle plan you way through victory? Tanks imo need speed to do those encirclements and move around the battlefield to either attank where breakthroughs are possible or where defense is weakening... and feedback's doctrine of tank division with speed same as infantry... probably wouldn't cut it
Speed would matter a lot more but generally speaking, if youre upgrading the engines then youll get enough speed to make encirclements.
In SP, if you can push the entire frontline with tanks, it doesnt matter if theyre not faster than infantry, since youll win the battles regardless. In MP its also a matter of being able to pierce the other tank divisions and the other players infantry to not pierce your tanks. 6-8kph is more than enough and you get there by upgrading your engines and putting a few points extra in them on the designer.
Ignoring the penalties in these situations is more around the idea that theres just not a good, convenient way to overcome them. All tanks will suck ass pushing in the Soviet marshes, no matter how speedy the unit is, for a quick example.
This is due to how you can pin tiles in the game. You need superior stats to not lose those battles while your side divisions move forward uncontested since they also cannot lose their battles. Speedy tanks are more of a niche, since even if theyre the fastest possible unit, if they cannot hold the divisions encircled, it doesnt matter how much they can encircle.
Dave is British, Britain made ridiculous amount of Churchill tank in WW2, the slow, heavy armour infantry tank, that’s how British people think.
If you ask Tommy he’s gonna give you German tank designs
:D if you make it a fixed turret it is no longer a tank but a self propelled gun, thats what set the 2 apart.
How I like to do it is: 1936 to... say about 1942, it's purely Light Tanks. Just having like 30-40 freaking factories purely on Light Tank and spamming out crap ton of them. I also make the Light Tank divisions ridiculously big, like up-to 40-50 width. By 1941-42, as Germany at least, I have about 30-40 of these massive divisions. Then, I start slowly adding Medium tanks to the divisions. I usually use the very late version of Medium tank, or the one before that if it isn't 1943 yet (or do they unlock at 1942? Kinda forgot). That's when the AI's armor divisions can actually break my infantry, so I need actual armor in my tank divisions instead of "69420 soft attack go brrrrrrr"
You can have like 21 Div (6 Medium Tank + 3 Truck) in 1940 if you switch from Light to Medium in 1938. If your industry is build up enough, you can change the armor, gun, etc. to welded, medium gun, etc. and trade tungsten and chrome with Sweden.
@@mister_jayHD I see, thanks for the input. I'll try that next time.
Wasn't until this video that I noticed that the 40's medium tank chassis uses less steel than the 41's light tank chassis. That seems wrong somehow, but will factor into my decision making when deciding if I have the steel to make mediums
Personally I make tank divisions that are 4medium 1 light, and the armored recon support. This with 3 or 4 half track infantry divisions makes the numbers of tanks similar to real life panzer divisions. I also find this division setup is just solid all around and works in almost any situation. The one downside is that the organization will be right around 30%, so you just half to be careful with chain attacking.
4:00 the difference between 80 and 85 hardness is actually quite significant, and not "barely a difference." Because of the way math works, going from 80 to 85 hardness will reduce the soft attack damage you take by 25%, which is a much bigger difference than 5%. In practice it won't be that big since it's averaged across the division, but it's far more significant than it looks.
As for terrain penalties, haha double adaptable go brrrr.
Not really. You forgot that you will also have motorized divisions in there which will massively decrease the hardness. So 80 to 85 is not that high difference, unless you use mechanizied inf which comes too late.
What if you do pure tank/sp artillery division? Then the hardness difference really does come in.
A lot of people would say a pure tank/sp artillery division is a bad idea, but I think it works as a static attacker. Using support attacks instead of actually advancing to take enemy territory, a pure tank division can get away with having 3.6 org, because it breaks enemy divisions so easily and never suffers the org hit from taking territory. Use the heavy tanks to win the battle and the trucks/infantry to take the territory.
@@J7Handle Very bad idea IMO. Sure, might work against AI, but anything works against AI even on max diff if you have some experience with the game and dont play luxemburg TBH.
@@fridericusrex6289 true, I've not played against players. So I have no experience to draw on for that. But maximizing soft attack with minimal regard to defense or breakthrough has worked better against the AI than anything else I do.
Now that I know having more defense/ breakthrough than the enemy has attack is pointless, I know that in theory, maximizing defense/breakthrough is never the correct strat against either players or AI, and that getting just the right amount of defense or breakthrough to minimize damage received is the correct strat. Of course, players concentrate their firepower much more effectively than AI, so when fighting against players you should go for much more breakthrough/defense than against the AI.
Another thing I can determine should work in theory. If you can add 10% attack to a division without increasing combat width, that division template should win battles _at least_ 10% faster than before, meaning it only requires at most 90% as much org as before in order to be worth it.
Also, divisions with higher attack and less org generally suffer less attrition and casualties, because both of those depend on the duration of the battle. More attack = shorter duration = fewer casualties and less attrition.
If I were up against another player, my priority would be to inflict casualties and not to risk attempting large encirclements. I might even make a fighting retreat while focusing on breaking my opponent's offensive divisions. Actually, a good strat for that would be tank destroyer divisions.
@@J7Handle There are situations where you want lot of attack, eg push through enemy heavy defense lines, eg if allies try to fortify france, but usually people do just arty + inf. Division with full tanks and SP arty lacks org to be effective and is very very expensive. Pushing through entrenchd fortified line? Sure. But thats not meta anyways. And if you have acess to resources to build full tank divs, prob better to spam some cheaper divisions and lot of air.
As for maxing def. Well usually you max HP and org as well. Those two are quite important for defense. A division which has only rifles and even lacks equipment and doesnt have any attack at all is still valuable if it has org. Also your enemy can attack your one div with multiple ones. That comes back to the 20 vs 40 width meta. Now width is less important so you can make larger divisions which will have lot of stats or smaller divs with less attack and def, but more of them in combat. Both has pros and cons.
Air is deciding factor for mp anyway I think.
Im trying to get all the achievements, so all my playthroughs recently are with small countries without the industry for tanks. By the time I get to tanks, it's always like 1950 and I just use super expensive moderns cause I'll have conquered the world lol.
Well if you wanna do a tank game with a minor you can pick Canada or México (Although with México you have to annex centroamérica and the caribe for extra resourses and some industry)
Personally I think wheeled and half-track suspension is there for making cheap self-propelled AT/ART/AA
Indeed. I just never find myself using them, because I convert old tank models into SPG/SPAA. Changing the tracks will just make the conversion more expensive.
@janbo8331 true. It's probably useful if you're making an army from scratch. Eg, America.
Amphibious tank only game when?
其實重型與中型之間的差別，就是在"裝甲"
當敵人只有裝備 AA的時候，他們可以打穿 中型的坦克
但是當敵人只有裝備 AT的時候，才有機會打穿重型坦克
也就是重型坦克 才有更多可能性去獲得"裝甲優勢"
Personally I rarely prioritize tanks, I usually just get couple of light tank divisions with sonic speed to do encirclements. I just put 2 to 5 factories on tanks and leave them there with the trains, this way I can use the factories and to produce more expensive planes in bigger numbers. Also because the AI barely builds any tanks so you don't really need better tanks, just infantry/artillery and CAS
Lights are definetely viable for rushing early game wars in mainland Europe before nations have got their medium tanks ready. But once 1940 comes around you need to have achieved a win condition or your lack of medium tank production will cause you to drop off quickly and get stomped.
Honestly a risky play that can catch a lot of people off guard.
Isn't the whole point of Super Heavy's to make it impossible for late game fort turtling players?
It seems to me that it makes sense to team up a few medium tank divisions with some light tank or motorized divisions. Use the light tanks or motorized to speed ahead and surround enemy units and bring in the medium to break those surrounded units or deal with anything the light tanks or motorized can't deal with.
Something interesting I found is that you can make op soft attack light tanks where you put medium howitzer 2 with a fixed chassis and set it to SPA and make it as cheep as possible with easy maintenance, wheeled suspension instead of tracked, and just enough armor so that hopefully they don’t get pierced by early game AA. You can get like 2k soft attack divisions in 1940 if you set up your generals right and get some training on the divisions and they will melt infantry and is basically a more expensive rocket artillery with better stats. It can be nice if you are playing like Germany or Russia where you get a lot of light tanks throughout the game that you can retrofit into something more useful
Also wrote this before he went over the fixed cannons and stuff nvm
Of course, the answer of what to produce depends on how you plan to use them, who your opponents will be and what period of the war it is. Concentrated mobile divisions, followed up by infantry, or space marines? Early war when you don’t face many tanks or AT on Inf, or late war when your enemies will have more AT and tanks? Will you have air superiority or be getting hammered with CAS? Where are you fighting (Europe, Asia, Africa)?
This tells you what each type does best. Next step is matching that to what the need is.
medium tanks are better than modern tanks even.
nahhhh super heavy
My man!!!
I have a really weird doctrine: my infantry and tanks pierce the front lines and then the tanks will incircle the unites. However most of the damage is done by the infantry and so the tanks can only fight disorganized units. That is why I really like medium tanks with emphasis on mobility (I should really switch to light ones).
1-Medium chassis But light turret.
2- Heavy chassis But medium turret or L. turret
Paradox should Integrate armored cars to the tank designer(Maybe even mechanized trucks too).
What even is the Meta these days
Depends on the country I'm playing and strategy. Light tank division with motorized to hit weak infantry lines and rapid break outs. Heavy with mechanized to rofl stomp anything and steady push. Medium tank with motorized is the generic one I use for lots of different roles.
兩棲坦克 屬於"特種部隊"，基本上就是來突破特殊地形的"河流" 你最最喜歡用來當成防禦線的地方，就超級可能被特種部隊擊穿
Depends on who you play. Mediums unless you have limited industry or everywhere you'll be fighting is mountains and jungle (Italy, Africa, South America)
Played a game recently where I made a heavy specifically to add to baseline infantry divisions (playing as America, world domination). So 4km, good reliability, and as much armor as possible. These infantry divisions were unpierceable by the majority of divisions I encountered. Optimal? Not really. Effective? Extremely.
Medium all the way babyyyyy
I play Heavy Tank Germany for the same as reason the mustache man, they're fuel efficient thus I can bring more CAS and more Fighters overall that can impact far more than tanks in the battlefield. Usually infantry, green air and CAS is enough to do a WC without any problems. You don't even need tanks, I do them because I'm a roleplayer after I got good at the game. For context I did a recent WC with Finland only using tanks lategame 1946, air is far more impactable than any unit, can even go as saying that you can WC with 10width with artillery and anti-air with CAS support.
I don't understand why you didn't start the comparison with Interwar. Sure, it's not what most are building but it WOULD be a direct technical comparison of tank by tech lvl.
i appreciate the info breakdown on this. i'm struggling hard in HOI4!
"The one that people don't focus on as much, hardness.."
Me who builds tonks to throw in as recon mainly for that hardness to make space marines: 👀
I like lights and mediums, lights because of the insane speed you can stack on them, and mediums because of the good balance between Breakthrough, Speed, Hardness and Production cost
Lights for recon, when i just wanna pad some early game armour on infantry, Light SPG's are also pretty good early, but i mainly play as turkey where basic lights are unlocked, and med/heavies aren't, and you have practically no military factories at the start of the game
Medium for pretty much all serious armour later on, the cost difference being as small as it is, and the armour/BT being significantly better once you add turrets.
I've never built a heavy tank, captured some sure but never built a single one, only place i could see them as useful would be as an infantry div flame tank, the production cost is too prohibitive, and they're too slow for anything else
Fine review of stats. Tactically, any sort of tank can work, although the sort of tank you build is one that supports the way you right, where you fight. Sooo, heavies and super H to knock down forts, lights for speed, amphibious for water, and mediums to a balanced approach. Analysis doesn’t take into account speed, which along with hardness is the whole reason to build a tank. If you’re not using mobility with your tanks, you’re missing out on the whole point.
I wish they had heavier artillery pieces for heavy SPGs. I want a heavy, fixed superstructure SPG that's basically just a Karl-Gerät so I can make some unholy division with like 2k soft attack that just strength deletes units.
I think the only weakness with this analysis is that in a normal game you are going to try to research the best chassis for your tank as soon as possible, but light tanks only go to 1941. If you manage your research most countries can have 1943 chassis by 1942 if they eat a year ahead of time penalty on the 1938 and 1940 chassis and time whatever 100% armor bonus their tree has for the 1943 chassis. Germany/USSR are even better off since they get their own bonuses plus a research bonus from Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Even if your guns are crap having the latest chassis means you can start making tanks with that chassis and start upgrading already built tanks to better guns as you get them.
Light tanks also start getting demolished by normal infantry once the enemy has any AT/AA or the passive infantry piercing tech. The AI seems to prefer doing AT in some of their infantry divisions, so I usually find light tanks barely work against major countries in SP after 1942 or so. Their hardness might be similar to mediums but their armor is way less so that doesn't matter if the enemy can 75% or 100% pierce them. On the other hand up to date mediums and heavies will generally stand up to towed AT of the same tech level.
As an aside, I never considered a heavy howitzer on a medium tank could be SP Artillery, I should try that sometime.
super heavy only play through when?
Medium tank destroyers with t2 heavy cannons with reliability mods. Move to hybrid engine late game with extra bonus to defense.
You NEED a maintenance company 2 though.
Love these. Super hard to kill.
I usually use all 7 2 divisions with one army of light tank divisions I use for breakthroughs and speed
I don’t know but i just prefer light tanks
That's certainly a way to pronounce Howitzer.
For me, I use heavies, because I’m not good at micromanaging lots of tank divisions. So I make a handful of really powerful heavy tanks instead of loads of mediums or lights
I used to go heavy as turkey. Who had chromium but lacked other stuff.
I usually trying to make armored army or two, which i use to break the frontline and encircle enemy. 6-8 medium armored divs with mech infantry and motorized artillery to break front, 8-10 light with mot. infantry to actually run into a breach and make encirclement and others like mech infantry with SPGs or mot. or cav (depends on production and stockpile reserves) to hold enemy reserves, cover flanks, if they try to cut my pocket off and encircle breakthrough forces. Make hevies late game mostly if i have lots of factories and resources to brake forts or to listen Prussia gloria. Would be happy to hear your thoughts on this🙂
Because of the hardness i would put a few super tanks with light tanks (either destroyers or artilery) and motorized or cavalary or Just special forces. You Will end up with Just a few super tanks to build and you can focus on making light tanks as cheap as you want. You can be impenetrable, have tons of soft attack and hard attack and be flexible on most terrain because of special forces and because you Will have Just a few super heavy tank battalions So penalties Will be reduced. This division can eat a lot of supply So you Will not need more than Just a few divisions and, while slow, they can hit for a lot of dmg. Will try this on Soviets and try world conquest with those divisions.
i tested hardness in game , i had a 25 wide tank div. ONLY TANK , and run into only infantry men whitout amor ... i lost so many tanks , i dk but i think hardness is buggd ?
tanks only doesnt have org and i think low hp.
Infantry still has some hard attack, And a only tanks division while having high hardness will have VERY LOW HP. Which means it takes big losses even if the enemy has low attack.
Low HP means you take very high losses on a lost battle, the higher the HP the lower the losses
Are you a Russian General?
You can never just have tanks in a division, you need to mix in some kind of calvarly, motorized/mechanized infantry etc for HP and org.
Still going to pick and design my tanks by doctrine and economic situation.
I always go heavies with mech and Inf space marines. It kills anything ingame.
one way to ilustrate 80 85 95 hardness jumps , mediums get 25% less damage from Soft attack then lights , and heavies take 34% what mediums take , 5% from 0 dont seams like a lot but closer you get to 100% the bigger impact these small numbers have , Superheavies with 100% are immune to soft attack
RPG games ftw
That math is wrong
A medium takes 3 times as much damage as a heavy from Soft
A light takes 4 times as much damage as a heavy from Soft
A light takes 33% more damage than a medium from Soft
if a heavy takes 10 Soft damage, a medium would take 30 and a light 40
Your numbers
60
45
22.5
Real numbers
60
45
15
@@MoonyRuney your math is not wrong , but reasoning is
We are both correct
@@MoonyRuney if you go at any website who does calculations for you "more then" "less then" , you will see i am right , this is common misconception i see on people with "less then" and "more then" , politicians often use that to make something seam bigger then it seams , or smaller then it is.
@@VarenvelDarakus Then explain why my reasoning is, because I do not see how you can say that heavies "take half of what mediums take" when the numbers are 85% and 95%. Heavies take 5% soft attack damage, Mediums take 15% soft attack damage, and Lights take 20% soft attack damage.
The only thing I would ever put on a Super Heavy would be a howitzer.
I find that light tanks are the only viable choice with minor nations (I usually play Belgium or the Netherlands) early on due to resource constraints (not much steel, and usually no chromium), with the exception of Turkey because Turkey can enter WWII whenever it wants in Hoi4 so you have more than enough time to build up mil factories to churn out a crap ton of medium tank divisions and heavy tank divisions and also you have A LOT of chromium and steel. I wonder how light tanks compare to mechanized (not motorized) in terms of cost effectiveness?
I tend to use heavy tank destroyers as a support company for my main hold the line defense type divisions. In my divisions spectialized for attack I like wheeled light tanks with motorized infantry.
amphib only, reject land and embrace the sea!
Dave I love ya but that's not how heavy armor works in DnD it usually adds your AC which is the stat that let's you know if you even hit, something with high AC is either super agile or super armored
Hmm I hadn't considered that I could design my light tanks in a way to get more armor and breakthrough. I've been blindly following guides for my first 300 hours of game time. Maybe time to experiment
what i don't understand is why would you get a lower production cost for lower reliability because i thought reliability is just the likelyhood for your equipment to breakdown and if you're decreasing reliability then the production cost would be lost because you'd have to produce more.
Plz test a 100% super heavy division. Even though they have no org, they cant get damaged by standard infantry.
You should do a super heavy only germany😂 just to test how far you would come
cavalry and a super heavy, i call it the iron burger;)
I've always been a medium tank user. I still feel they're the most real rounded design
Call me crazy but a small full superheavy tank division (less tan 10 width) with engineer company and anti-air support company maybe the ideal defense troop with his 100% hardness against most AI divisions specially if you can have green air and 10L fort.
Super heavy with amphibious drive :D
I wish more tech trees would have boosts to tanks and mechs.
Super heavies for the memes
32 width tank destroyer are my go to. :)
Very useful guide
Light Tanks are OP as a volunteer corp for the Spanish Civil War.
@
FeedbackIRL I NEED TO tell you something very serious my man!
Lights, mediums? Nah I'm gonna do historic unit organization and equipment. Screw meta, it's all bout that glorious RP! 😂😅
iam most likely doing ligh+medium TD/modern td+ medium/modern with mechanizeth infantry
5% increase "basically the same"
10% increase "massive difference"
ok
That just dumb. Wheeled suspension on a light tank is an armored car. Lol