Tank purchases still DEAD

As Germany I try to buy 2 a turn for those unforeseen breakthroughs (if losing) or to rush to the front. Otherwise I plod forward with Inf and Art, especially if I have Air units to get some 3s in the dice rolling.

I buy armor only as germany, G6 / G7 Moscow is dead. Granted I buy so that 4-10 mech/armor is on germany. Hold nov G3, armor gets droped there 2 rounds before moscow, ukraine and volgograd is the round before attack.

Usuallly G6 / G7 moscow is dead unless it recieves significant help from the other allies… in which case pacific victory is inevitable.

I’d even go one further – I’m a big fan of defending western Europe with naval and air superiority per (I believe) the way Stalingradski laid it out, plus a couple airbases to get extra 4’s in the battle. It makes it so that you can take your time walking to Moscow and not have to engage in high-loss battles because you know the clock is ticking on the western front. And 7 IPC for an infantry and an artillery play a lot better than 6 IPC for an armor, as long as speed isn’t a requirement. Then, of course, the other benefit of keeping allied navies at bay with the Germans is you let Italy grow into the little brother that can end the game with an 8th VC capture of Cairo at around the same time you’re overwhelming Moscow with more guys than they can kill. And Italy can’t very well do that when they have to worry about Eisenhower landing 12-20 units a turn up their unprotected rump.

defending europe? from what? the nothingness the allies get to drop? only germany gets to use tanks.

Comparing infantry/artillery to tank/mech combos is like comparing apples and oranges.  You do get the same offensive punch for $7 versus $10 but that doesn’t count in the value of mobility and time saved.

I totally agree, Vance. If you’re making an all out push, you want an immediate punch and you don’t have time to wait for units to catch up. Given that, if you can build into your strategy that you’ve got some time to play with, there are certainly more effective ways to project forces out a couple more turns given the same pile of funds. Yes, Cow, I know you don’t like playing games that take more than a few hours to play – I’m sure this approach isn’t for you; there IS more than one way to skin a cat.

Declaring that there’s never a reason you’d want to buy tanks? Hmmm. I think that’s an overstatement. As in reality, I think mixed-arms in G40 allows you to achieve your objectives best on a changing battlefield where you have to adapt to changing conditions on the fly. If you don’t have the units available when you need them because you were single-minded in your purchases, you won’t be able to take advantage of openings as those opportunities present themselves.

I’m glad of it. No such thing as replacing dominant armies composed of Infantry with nothing but tanks. No nation could do that and the game should make the infantry the primary built unit.

If the game supports having 15 tanks and nothing but that as the way to win, the game is not right on many levels.

:-D   OK so here are a few strategies one might use that require tanks and mechs:

Germany - fast tank/mech force to catch up with and reinforce inf/art Barbarossa spearhead
USSR - infantry in Bryansk and NEW tanks in Moscow to slow German advance by threat of counterstrike in multiple locations
Japan - minor ICs in China build tank/mechs to drive across china to Stalingrad or India or go up North to starve Russia out
USA - anytime USA gets control of an IC anywhere beyond the western hemisphere it will probably be a tank factory
China - Russian or UK tanks to reinforce Chinese infantry and keep them alive
UK - South Africa tank/mechs to reinforce Egypt; India tanks to attack or reinforce Yunnan or middle east
Italy - can openers in the eastern front
ANZAC - inf/tank take islands more reliably than inf/art, ANZACs do landing after sea zone cleared by US navy
France - Liberate Paris, get 2 tanks why not.

There are probably a thousand others.  None of these is always the best strategy but all of them are sometimes the right strategy for the situation.

I buy tanks also.

1. A good supply of tanks and mech offer more tactical opportunities then pure art/mech formations.  Artillery isn’t mobile.
2. Mech can only blitz at a 1-1 ratio with tanks.
3. They’re the cheapest 3, offensively or defensively.  Isn’t that reason enough to maintain one on each major front?
4. The sheer size of the map favors mobility.

Tanks remain valuable as an offensive unit but at 6 ipc they don’t compete with infantry (or art/mech) as a defensive unit.

I think tanks were too dominant in previous versions and i’m happy with the price change.  Tanks aren’t dead, they’re balanced.

@allweneedislove:

anzac- are you serious or is this a joke. have you ever thought it was a good idea to purchase an anzac tank to go island hoping?

Not a joke.  All of those tactics, and many many others, may be optimal under the right set of circumstances.  There is no ONE best strategy for all situations.

Allweneedislove, imagine what your purchases would be if you were going for Moscow and Calcutta on G5-G7/J5-J7.  There are alot of advantages to quickly seizing capitals.  Wouldn’t tanks be useful in these circumstances?  And later in the game for blitzing?  For Germany obviously.  But also for Japan–tanks coming out of mainland factories will add extra punch and they’ll also remain useful after taking China/Calcutta.

Surely we can imagine circumstances (eg Sea Lion game, or late game KGF where USA is forced to confront Japan) where Russia needs offense on a front and can’t wait around for artillery.  Tanks and mech will be more efficient then planes and mech.  The same reasoning goes for UK Pacific and UK Africa.  I get that you want alot more mech then tanks for fodder and to add extra weight to defensive stacks, but Russia will need offensive power to take Berlin.

Vance is right about the amphib tanks – it’s ironic that the armor’s value in an amphibious assault is like 20% offensive (and, at that, only if the battle goes more than 1 round); since the total # of units is limited by transport capacity, 80% of their value is in the 3’s they give you on defense in holding the newly conquered territory.

Allweneed, why did you not respond to my last comment on your other tank RIP thread, but just start a new one?
Fine, I’ll copy paste it here.  If Zhukov is arguing with you, you’re wrong.  :-)

Absolutely.  I and my opponents buy tanks regularly.

Recent example:
It was Russia’s turn and I wanted to prevent my opponent from driving in to East Poland with Germany and Italy, because from there he can go north or south.
I bought 6 tanks, 3 for Ukraine and 3 for Nov.  He was then unable to get into East Poland and had to go Baltic States instead.  I kept him out of the South through round 5, when he resigned.

Only tanks can move 2 spaces and attack at 3, which is much more powerful than mech infantry’s 1.
Also, transports can only carry one non-infantry unit.  The tank is the best one on offense and defense, so is the best unit even when taking islands.
Also, there are times when you are limited to purchasing 3 units at a factory and you need strength in ground units.  Tanks are by far the best.
Also, it takes a tank to allow mech infantry to blitz, 1 for 1.  No tanks, no blitzing with mechs.  Few tanks, little blitzing with mechs.
Tanks are the only ground unit that can give the tac bomber its attack boost.  If your power has lost a lot of fighters as casualties and tacs far outnumber fighters, this is especially significant.
Merely comparing the stats of move 2, cost 6, attack 3 and defend 3 with other units is to ignore an awful lot of considerations.  Tanks have many advantages, and are definitely worth the cost of 6, even though it seemed unreasonable when the rule change first came out.

There are very very few strategies that work MOST everytime. Purchasing units to replace losses is one of them. With that said yes buy tanks I normally only do it to replace losses but they are purchased. and mech + fighter is no where near as effective as inf. + tank the fighter alone makes it the more expensive opition. $9 compared to $14. if you raise that up to another round of buying that way then it’s 2 mechs and 2 fighters for $28. for $28 I could buy 3 inf. and 3 tanks. Same offensive punch. Mine is better on the defense because the plane can’t land in the territory that was just taken thus not part of the defense. I will gladly play and beat anyone that wants to buy nothing but mech. + fighter. and I’ll do it with Inf. + Tank.

I have to reverse opion about mech than you seem to. I think mechs are the waste of cash I’ll take a tank any day. When comparing mechs to inf and art. they look ok but when compared to tank they come up lacking. for $2 I get +2 attack, +1 defense, blitz and a boost to my tac. bombers.

Mechs definitely have their place too
The worst buy in 1940 seems to me to be the tactical bomber