Tank destroyers don't have a place in the current game.

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Tank destroyers don't have a place in the current game.

      :| The tank destroyer has no place as it exist currently within the game. Its stats are essentially identical to the anti-tank across scale for all doctrines. It holds better offensive statistics but as the in game description will tell you it's preferred to be used as a defensive unit. It's slightly over mediocre damage offensively, is useless when you consider just using medium tanks and attack bombers/ artillery instead. Not to mention its production time is more than the anti-tank, and it's more expensive, using it for speed would be understandable if there was actually consistency within that statistic. Its highest movement speed is on terrain, as we all know, however outside that it drops to resemble the average speed of an anti-tank unit! While still higher usually, it's only by a margin such as the allies doctrine's twenty-seven and thirty disparity same with the other doctrines it moves faster in urban environments but by so little it's irrelevant. Now it holds good defensive stats higher than the anti-tank by a bit, so you get thinking "okay not so bad" but when you see the speed on average it's higher cost and it's vulnerabilities to infantry even if it is essentially a quirky armored filler unit of an anti-tank it's pointless. Especially when you can produce anti-tanks faster in a defensive situation and still have an effective defense. If nothing receives a buff other than speed that be fine, at least that might give me incentive to use it and a slightly higher offensive damage enough towards it's just below the mediums at dispatching light armor. It's an embarrassment of a unit, so much to the degree I have actually used militias in desperate last ditch situations until other units can arrive, more than I ever used a tank destroyer. Better off just using mediums and not wasting resource on this armored pseudo wanna be anti-tank, do you agree with me? Is my criticism inaccurate or too harsh? How do you use the anti-tank if you do?

    • I use them when I play Comintern in the mid and late game. I like to pair SP arty and SPRA for the heavy lifting offensively. I then pair tank destroyers and armored cars to prevent them from being rushed and throw in a few SPAA as protection against bombers. I only use them defensively. In my opinion, the advantage tank destroyers have over tanks is ease of researching, producing and upgrading over tanks. This would be true for anti tanks as well, but they are much less mobile. I only use them defensively. For instance, you can produce light tanks and medium tanks but you can’t upgrade them to heavy tanks after you produce them. However you’re stuck researching light and medium tank in order to research heavy tank. With tank destroyers you can just research light tanks then start researching tank destroyers. Once you produce a few, you can continue researching tank destroyer and upgrade them. It works for me at least. Heavy tanks are just too slow and require too many resources for me, even with the Comintern buff. Hope this helps.

    • I see, I agree that the heavy tanks cost to much for most economies, but I use them for major home defence when I need a solid amount of health for a stack.The tank destroyer on one hand with timing and placement can thrive in defence, other than that they are not built for.
      Made without nuts :00008698:



      I want my lawyer :trust_me:

    • You could say similar about anti-air vs SPAA. The low-level SPAA is barely faster than regular anti-air. The benefit of tank destroyers vs anti-tank can be as simple as the difference in armor class. Depending on what my opponent is using, I may want more units in my stack as Heavy Armor rather than Infantry--like if his stacks are heavy in Mot Inf or he's an Allied doctrine and relies on Tacs. I use TDs all the time when I'm Allied just as damage soaks in my artillery stacks, with the added benefit that I can break them off if someone rushes me with fast units, which tend to be stronger vs Infantry (Mot Inf, high leveled ACs). I don't care that TDs don't do much defensive damage against Mot Infs--they just need to hold it steady while I'm bombarding.

      It really just depends on what your army needs; even if they aren't used often they definitely have a place.

    • Excellent point about the armor class, being that's one of its few redeeming traits. Say in the example you used against tactical bombers which you will definitely face every game, it takes less damage individually and when in a stack as compared to its infantry classified counterpart. However, while this can have an effect out the outcome of some battles, by the point you are facing tactical bombers you will have anti-air in just about every stack. Early game you won't be building tank destroyers, by the time you might, it would be best to just use anti-tank instead and accept the marginally higher damage you will face.

    • Never considered using armored cars and tank destroyers in the same stack, that's pretty interesting. Defensively, I can see why someone would prefer a tank destroyer as compared to a heavy tank as in some cases which are more frequent than we imagine we simply can't afford heavy tanks and their speed leaves much to be desired. Even with the marginally inferior (in the early levels except for maybe allies) movement speed of the anti tank it's production time remains superior and though while not always reasonable building forward bases can alleviate the issue of availability on the battlefield.

    • Aside from the armor class, the big difference between TD and AT is hp.
      TD's have around double the hp of an AT. Combine that with the armor class and it's a hell of unit to kill, especially against units that easily kills AT's like tacs, inf, rocket arty. Also better at killing mechs, AC's and even Med tanks as they do less dmg to heavy compared to unarmored so it's more efficient than AT. Double hp also means the dmg received is smaller, half, in proportion to total hp compared to AT so more efficiency.
      Ocf, being heavy armored exposes it to a lot of other units like arty, atks, but that's what makes the unit, and the game as a whole more interesting.

      Also, a lvl1 TD has the same movespeed as a max lvl AT in plains.

      With that being said, I still only really build TD's once I know I'm gonna be facing a lot of tanks.

    • One more thing, resources. AT's use food and goods while TD's use metal, oil and rares.
      The option of using metal, oil and rares for anti armor instead of being constricted to just food and goods is one of the pros of TD's.

      If you only have 1 goods province and double metal/oil/rares, then TD's are the better choice economically.

    • Z. Sakki wrote:

      One more thing, resources. AT's use food and goods while TD's use metal, oil and rares.
      The option of using metal, oil and rares for anti armor instead of being constricted to just food and goods is one of the pros of TD's.

      If you only have 1 goods province and double metal/oil/rares, then TD's are the better choice economically.
      When you're done upgrading your economy, you can really produce TDs!

    • Z. Sakki wrote:

      One more thing, resources. AT's use food and goods while TD's use metal, oil and rares.
      The option of using metal, oil and rares for anti armor instead of being constricted to just food and goods is one of the pros of TD's.

      If you only have 1 goods province and double metal/oil/rares, then TD's are the better choice economically.
      That also goes the other way though. I usually find myself running short on inorganic resources, so it pushes me even further from td's

    • Z. Sakki wrote:

      One more thing, resources. AT's use food and goods while TD's use metal, oil and rares.
      The option of using metal, oil and rares for anti armor instead of being constricted to just food and goods is one of the pros of TD's.

      If you only have 1 goods province and double metal/oil/rares, then TD's are the better choice economically.
      All resources are important of course, but those hold a special place in upgrading my industry, so I often won't have them in abundance. As you said, you can switch, but why even bother when you can use those resources for industrial development and the production of more solid tanks? I'd rather upgrade my AT instead. Tank destroyers are rarely used early on as a result and by the time you decide to use them you could already have a solid AT level researched. Then there is the actually researching of it, I'd rather go research attack bombers and artillery. But this thread has made me see some of the tank destroyer's potential, so I think ill try giving it a chance. I could also see how it could be a better choice economically I'm currently in a game as Columbia they have two rares and metal also goods and oil. Not a single non-urban food province, so I'm contemplating using destroyers as even with them being the resource of industrial development they far out way my food production and id rather use that food for troops and the goods for air, so I see your point.

    • Yea the reason I don't really use TD's is because most of my metal, oil and rares go to building industries, except maybe a few ships and AC's. I only really build armor divisions at mid-late game.

      I see them more of a niche unit like strats, rockets and commandos. They're not in my "general build" but if I expect a lot or armor, then maybe.

    • SlimeCommander wrote:

      :| The tank destroyer has no place as it exist currently within the game. Its stats are essentially identical to the anti-tank across scale for all doctrines. It holds better offensive statistics but as the in game description will tell you it's preferred to be used as a defensive unit. It's slightly over mediocre damage offensively, is useless when you consider just using medium tanks and attack bombers/ artillery instead. Not to mention its production time is more than the anti-tank, and it's more expensive, using it for speed would be understandable if there was actually consistency within that statistic. Its highest movement speed is on terrain, as we all know, however outside that it drops to resemble the average speed of an anti-tank unit! While still higher usually, it's only by a margin such as the allies doctrine's twenty-seven and thirty disparity same with the other doctrines it moves faster in urban environments but by so little it's irrelevant. Now it holds good defensive stats higher than the anti-tank by a bit, so you get thinking "okay not so bad" but when you see the speed on average it's higher cost and it's vulnerabilities to infantry even if it is essentially a quirky armored filler unit of an anti-tank it's pointless. Especially when you can produce anti-tanks faster in a defensive situation and still have an effective defense. If nothing receives a buff other than speed that be fine, at least that might give me incentive to use it and a slightly higher offensive damage enough towards it's just below the mediums at dispatching light armor. It's an embarrassment of a unit, so much to the degree I have actually used militias in desperate last ditch situations until other units can arrive, more than I ever used a tank destroyer. Better off just using mediums and not wasting resource on this armored pseudo wanna be anti-tank, do you agree with me? Is my criticism inaccurate or too harsh? How do you use the anti-tank if you do?
      Anti-tank needs good and you need good for artillery and bomber , of course at next days you will need anti-air too
      anti-tank has very low hp , all infantry type units and tac bombers can destroy it easily
      you have oil , iron , rare and you need spend them too
      tank destroyer is better option than medium or heavy tank

    • Undaunted you might start looking at the dates of the original post before responding to it, the OP is just under a YEAR ago, so mate hate to tell you this but the people that were involved in this have moved on and tbh either are not interested in what you have to say or are not even involved in the forums now. So can you please start a new and relevant post on a topic that interest you but do not necro a year old discussion that is only adding your opinion to it for too late to influence a timely discussion.
      "Strategy is the art of making use of time and space. I am less concerned about the later than the former. Space we can recover, lost time never." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

      "Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success." ~ Erwin Rommel