Medium Tanks are Good, actually

Carking the 6th · Jul 7th 2023, 2:39pm

This is an opinion that I’ve held for a long time. Medium tanks, Which are usually opted out of in exchange for other vehicles or units, are actually pretty useful. They are great at offense, having many useful traits that make them fit for the job of a frontline unit. They are also quite versatile, and can be used in combination with many other units. The medium tank is a great unit, at least when used correctly, in combined arms with other units.

Medium tanks are good units to take on the offensive. While their high damage against light armor is only helpful in small cases, as this unit type isn’t used very often, their decent damage when fighting heavily armored or totally unarmored units is good, but might not seem the most useful, as other units may do more damage.
The trick here is that medium tanks have a good balance. Their speed, health and damage are all quite high-not the highest, but still high. Building on this, their cost is not too expensive, especially in comparison with heavy tanks or strategic bombers. This makes them a handsome unit to combat most others on land, without the issue of slowness and cost with heavy tanks, low health and damage with lighter tanks, and acceptable cost to top it off. But one of the greatest strengths of the medium tank is not on its lonesome, but in combination.

The medium tank is best paired with other units, and is great for combined arms. One of its best strengths lie in its balanced stats, which allow it to accompany other units, specifically artillery and motorized infantry, without slowing down stacks. It can serve as a shield, adding large amounts of health to stacks and serving as a defense against armored units. And is great at the offense, dealing large amounts of damage while its high HP keeps stacks in the fight longer. While there are counters to tanks, its versatile ability to merge with other units and not burden them allows it to be protected while protecting other units at the same time.

There are a few drawbacks to the medium tank. First being the fact that it’s an offensive unit. Even if it is on offense most of the time counter attacks mean it might deal less damage to attacking units. But this is usually mitigated most of the time, where it’s fighting other offensive or defensive units which balances things out. Or in the case of say tank destroyers or heavy tanks, it can be used with Motorized infantry and artillery, it’s speed allowing it to outmatch heavy tanks, while the tank destroyers weakness against unarmored units protects the Medium while not weighing down the unarmored unit that’s used with the issue of speed.
Another drawback is less of that, and more of an alternative, that being the light tank. This is because the good light armor damage and extremely high speed of it allows the light tank to seem like an excellent alternative rather than the slower and more expensive medium. And in certain cases, especially while using the Pan-Asian or even allied doctrine, it may be the case that the light it superior to the medium tank. But most of the time, the high damage against light armor of medium tanks can act as a foil against it. Although the medium might be a bit slower, it has higher damage, and a stack using mediums, even in lower number is more likely to defeat one using light tanks.

The medium tank is a strange case. While I do see it used, it it’s not awfully often. This is in contrast to my generous wielding of the unit, often to powerful effect. The medium tank is excellent on the offense and a versatile unit that works well hand in hand with others. When used correctly in conjunction with other forces, the medium tank is arguably the best tank unit in game.

Imperialist San arta · Jul 7th 2023, 3:22pm

in most of my.ganes where I am pan Asian or allies,I always use light tanks because if there speed.i still use medium tanks from time to time,but I prefer light tanks.

NickXXXNick · Jul 7th 2023, 4:25pm

One thing I know is, I hate it when I find even one. I take med tanks out with planes when they are alone or in small stacks. Otherwise, I look for a combined attack with stacked land, air and hopefully sea units. If there’s AA and artillery it will get ugly. Might look to fall back and defend if battle is even close.

That said, I don’t use Med Tanks much and when I have made enough to be dangerous, they’re usually conquering empty provinces. For me they’re slow in too many key features of the game. I use planes, ships, armored cars and infantry early and often. I then adapt to my opponents/allies if necessary. Med tanks never seem to be decisive in my experience.

_Pyth0n_ · Jul 8th 2023, 10:17am

Alryt, I have a lot to counter I guess.
I'd like to also reiterate, that I also use MTs when using Axis, and sometimes with Comintern and Allies (when terrain dictates it).

Carking the 6th wrote:

Medium tanks are good units to take on the offensive. While their high damage against light armor is only helpful in small cases, as this unit type isn’t used very often, their decent damage when fighting heavily armored or totally unarmored units is good, but might not seem the most useful, as other units may do more damage.

Counterpoint: Smart players don't use MTs often, not because of their dmg against units, but something called SBDE.

SBDE stands for state-based damage efficiency. Ranged units like artillery, BB/CC and bombers have a high SBDE, since they can deal damage to other units in exchange for taking none (in the case of artillery vs. ground) or little (like an att. bomber against a MT). Players should strive to have armies that have high SDBEs, since it consequently means that they take very little or no dmg and do not need to replace dmged units with new, fresh units, saving resources and allowing for bigger armies/economy.

Let's take a theoretical, perfect scenario: You're facing an opponent with no air, artillery or navy. You can use your artillery for hit-and-run tactics; hit the opponent with a volley of artillery, retreat (or run) until your cooldown runs out, attack again, so on and so forth. Using this, you would take no dmg (again, in a perfect scenario). However, let's say your opponent has a singular brain cell; they'd use their fast troops (I'd assume a mot inf/MT/LT rush, since they'd have a lot of resources to invest in infantry and tanks if they don't use air, artillery or ships) to catch up to your artillery and destroy it, right? That's where a meat shield comes in; you have to have made a mixture of defensive units, like ACs, inf/militia, AT/TD (and AA, but that's not relevant in this case), place these units in front of the artillery so the enemy cannot reach your infantry; you have a shield to stop/delay the attack. As you retreat your artillery, you'd retreat your meat shield as well. Obv, in an IRL scenario, you'd have AA in your artillery stack so they don't die to planes, but I think I've made my point clear. Even if your opponent is death-stacking, you can still win; you just need a huge buffer zone and time.

With your strategy of just using MTs with mot inf and artillery (along with planes, I'm guessing), you'd stand no chance. Even if you capture a lot of land, I'd have killed/dmged more troops; land can be recaptured, but dead troops represent wasted resources.

Carking the 6th wrote:

One of its best strengths lie in its balanced stats, which allow it to accompany other units, specifically artillery and motorized infantry, without slowing down stacks.

What do you mean? You're giving up one of mot inf's greatest strengths; its speed. A MT is only slightly faster than an inf, it can't catch up to the speed of a mot (or even mech) inf. Hell, even a LT is slower than mot inf. The biggest threat to aforementioned meat shield is mot inf (ignoring that tac bombers shred them, but ints exist so I'm ignoring the air component), but adding med tanks just doomed the mot inf; it lost its speed and ability to catch up to med tanks. I suppose it wouldn't slow down artillery (not SP tho, since its faster than MT), but what's the point? Why would you keep an offensive unit in a ranged stack (of arty (SP or not) and rocket arty (SP or not))?

Carking the 6th wrote:

Another drawback is less of that, and more of an alternative, that being the light tank. This is because the good light armor damage and extremely high speed of it allows the light tank to seem like an excellent alternative rather than the slower and more expensive medium. And in certain cases, especially while using the Pan-Asian or even allied doctrine, it may be the case that the light it superior to the medium tank. But most of the time, the high damage against light armor of medium tanks can act as a foil against it. Although the medium might be a bit slower, it has higher damage, and a stack using mediums, even in lower number is more likely to defeat one using light tanks.

Again, people don't use LTs because of their dmg/cost ratio or anything; it's because 1. they are faster and 2. they are cheaper. LTs on their own can't do shit. You need artillery and air to get anything done; ground units are there only when direct combat is unavoidable, in which most cases it is.

Carking the 6th wrote:

The medium tank is a strange case. While I do see it used, it it’s not awfully often.

I tend to disagree; it is used far too often, and can be torn to shreds if adequately prepared enough.

Carking the 6th wrote:

When used correctly in conjunction with other forces, the medium tank is arguably the best tank unit in game.

It is probably the second-worst tank; it is essentially just a less bulky, less expensive, slightly faster version of the HT. ACs, LTs and TDs are all much better than the MT. I'd argue about this more, but I think I've made my point clear.

If you'd like me to back up my claims, I'll happily show the numbers at a later date

jubjub bird · Jul 8th 2023, 11:59am

That's not what SBDE is, or was. SBDE was the system to determine how many of each unit type would do damage during an engagement, before they switched to the Ten Best method. I think it ranged from 3 to 8. It is no longer relevant.

_Pyth0n_ · Jul 8th 2023, 12:02pm

jubjub bird wrote:

That's not what SBDE is, or was. SBDE was the system to determine how many of each unit type would do damage during an engagement, before they switched to the Ten Best method. I think it ranged from 3 to 8. It is no longer relevant.

Not referring to that, but to how artillery can dmg without taking any back. My apologies for using the wrong term, it might have come from the fact that its there on CON and used to describe what I explained above (that might be wrong as well tho, I just remember the term vividly used to describe that. Mandela effect I suppose)

Carking the 6th · Jul 8th 2023, 12:41pm

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Medium tanks are good units to take on the offensive. While their high damage against light armor is only helpful in small cases, as this unit type isn’t used very often, their decent damage when fighting heavily armored or totally unarmored units is good, but might not seem the most useful, as other units may do more damage.

Counterpoint: Smart players don't use MTs often, not because of their dmg against units, but something called SBDE.
With your strategy of just using MTs with mot inf and artillery (along with planes, I'm guessing), you'd stand no chance. Even if you capture a lot of land, I'd have killed/dmged more troops; land can be recaptured, but dead troops represent wasted resources.

With this you read my argument wrong, I wasn’t saying that the only strategy was to use Medium tanks, artillery and motorized infantry on land, I was so only saying that they go hand in hand with them. I use infantry to protect my artillery all the time. In this case I was simply giving an example of their strength on the offensive. There are plenty of strategies for them, this is just one of them.

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

One of its best strengths lie in its balanced stats, which allow it to accompany other units, specifically artillery and motorized infantry, without slowing down stacks.

What do you mean? You're giving up one of mot inf's greatest strengths; its speed. A MT is only slightly faster than an inf, it can't catch up to the speed of a mot (or even mech) inf. Hell, even a LT is slower than mot inf.

The thing here is that you are not slowing it down too far. Motorized infantry does not need to have its full speed to be effective, and the damage that MT’s add is worth far more than the speed. At least from anecdotal evidence, the strength of MT’s ends up being far more useful to me than the reduction of speed that I receive.

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

The biggest threat to aforementioned meat shield is mot inf (ignoring that tac bombers shred them, but ints exist so I'm ignoring the air component), but adding med tanks just doomed the mot inf; it lost its speed and ability to catch up to med tanks. I suppose it wouldn't slow down artillery (not SP tho, since its faster than MT), but what's the point? Why would you keep an offensive unit in a ranged stack (of arty (SP or not) and rocket arty (SP or not))?

I’ll have to ask for clarification here. What exactly do you mean? Maybe I’m just not reading this right, though.

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Another drawback is less of that, and more of an alternative, that being the light tank. This is because the good light armor damage and extremely high speed of it allows the light tank to seem like an excellent alternative rather than the slower and more expensive medium. And in certain cases, especially while using the Pan-Asian or even allied doctrine, it may be the case that the light it superior to the medium tank. But most of the time, the high damage against light armor of medium tanks can act as a foil against it. Although the medium might be a bit slower, it has higher damage, and a stack using mediums, even in lower number is more likely to defeat one using light tanks.

Again, people don't use LTs because of their dmg/cost ratio or anything; it's because 1. they are faster and 2. they are cheaper. LTs on their own can't do shit. You need artillery and air to get anything done; ground units are there only when direct combat is unavoidable, in which most cases it is.

I mentioned this exact point, and even conceded a bit here. Light tanks can indeed be superior, though I tend to prefer the medium.

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

The medium tank is a strange case. While I do see it used, it it’s not awfully often.

I tend to disagree; it is used far too often, and can be torn to shreds if adequately prepared enough.

I can concede that it’s used more often than I made it seem, but it’s less being used too often, and more not being used correctly. Like every unit it can be effective when used well, or crushed, if prepared for. But I don’t see it used hyper often, with most opting for Light tanks or armored cars-and not without reason; these units can be very effective as well, or torn to shreds if adequately prepared enough.

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

When used correctly in conjunction with other forces, the medium tank is arguably the best tank unit in game.

It is probably the second-worst tank; it is essentially just a less bulky, less expensive, slightly faster version of the HT. ACs, LTs and TDs are all much better than the MT. I'd argue about this more, but I think I've made my point clear.
If you'd like me to back up my claims, I'll happily show the numbers at a later date

I’m gonna disagree with this point, mostly with the Tank destroyer. This unit is only good when taking on armored units, especially in a defensive posture. And while it’s great against armored units, it’s very very weak in comparison to unarmored ones. In fact I’ve seen 2 AA take it on and defeat a TD. All same level.

Armored cars are pretty good, but I think they are inferior to motorized infantry in the cost and damage balance department. While they could be more useful than the medium tank, the fact that they are less balanced stats wise and inferior to Motorized infantry. I’ve fought them before, whether they are used as a main unit or the scout and I come out on top-most of the time. But to be fair here I haven’t used them often enough to be credible here. So I’ll take your word for it and cede that they might be better, depending on circumstances. Then again I’m the CarKing so my judgement is final!

As for the light tank, I agree they are better when using the Pan Asian doctrine, or when you are in a region that requires speed, or uses it as an advantage. But most of the time this is not the circumstance I pick my country in, and medium tanks end up being more versatile and powerful than their smaller cousins. Or at least to me.

As for numbers, I think showing them for the sake of science is an excellent idea! Even though I’m no Jub Jub having the numbers would be interesting and probably help some people who stumble upon here. Of course on the other hand maybe it would be better if I didn’t lose this debate…

I’ll still say that medium tanks are a good unit in many circumstances, and just like any other unit you have to find the right strategy for them. I just think people see them as that unit noobs starting off the game will try to rush in without any support, and are then crushed by artillery, planes, anti tank and the 100 other counters to armored units. when they can be really powerful when used correctly.

_Pyth0n_ · Jul 8th 2023, 5:05pm

Carking the 6th wrote:

With this you read my argument wrong, I wasn’t saying that the only strategy was to use Medium tanks, artillery and motorized infantry on land, I was so only saying that they go hand in hand with them. I use infantry to protect my artillery all the time. In this case I was simply giving an example of their strength on the offensive. There are plenty of strategies for them, this is just one of them.

The whole point of the thread is to argue the usefulness of MT. My counterpoint is that MT is not worth investing in; those resources are better used to develop industry or make other units. Even I agree that stat-wise, MTs are pretty good and an mid-high tier unit, but it's just not worth producing. You say that you use multiple strategies, but in the end the MT strategy is not needed. If we were fighting a battle, I would only need to produce artillery, AT/TD, inf, and AC, whilst you would need to produce artillery, MT, mot inf, and inf (I'm ignoring AA/ints and bombers for the sake of numbers, we'd both obviously be using them)

Let's look at the numbers (ignoring doctrines, since with Axis you would win in almost all cases)
*all units are lvl 1
(no money values, since it is extremely easy to get)

	Food	Goods	MP	Steel	Oil	RM
Inf	930	440	970	-	-	-
AC	-	490	1100	740	620	-
AT	390	850	740	120	-	-
TD			1240	1210	1040	450
Artillery	560	1300	1050	310	-	-
Mot. Inf	1310	310	1200	-	310	-
MT			1350	1320	1130	490

Let's assume both sides have equal numbers of artillery, so their production cost won't be counted in for this example.

I can produce 1 Inf, 1 AC, and 1 AT for 1320 food, 1780 goods, 2810 MP, 860 steel, and 620 oil. You can produce 1 MT, 1 Inf and 1 Mot Inf for 2240 food, 750 goods, 3520 MP, 1320 steel, 1440 oil and 490 RMs. The only thing that my stack is more expensive in is the goods department (1030 more, or 42%, which is significant, I will admit, but since I'm not considering artillery, both sides will spend massive quantities of goods regardless), and my stack does not need any RM, only needs 43% of the oil, 59% of the food, 65% of the steel, and 80% of the MP.

Obviously, we can't just look at the cost; we must also look at the damage. Reminder: My stack is 1 inf, 1 AC, and 1 AT, whilst opponent's stack is 1 MT and 1 Mot inf (you mention that you'd be using your inf to defend your artillery since in 99% of cases wouldn't be using it to attack.)

I'll be considering my stack as defensive, since that's how I'd be using it (to protect my artillery with a meat shield), and I'll be considering opponent's stack as offensive, since that is what MTs and mot inf are used for.

Dmg vs	Soft	L. Armour	H. Armour
Inf	4.5	2.3	1.5
AC	4.5	1.5	1.0
AT	1.0	4.6	6.0
MT	4.5	6.5	3.5
Mot Inf	6.0	3.0	2.3

In total, my stack does 10 soft dmg, 8.4 L.A dmg and 8.5 H.A. dmg, whilst your stack does 10.5 soft dmg, 9.5 LA dmg and 5.8 HA dmg. Now let's look at HP values for each stack:

Inf: 15
AC: 20
AT: 15
Total: 50

MT: 40
Mot Inf: 20
Total: 60

Opponent's stack has more HP than my stack. Not to worry! Terrain will save the day

	Forest	Mountains	Plains	Urban	Hills
Inf	+20%	+20%	-	+50%	-
AC	-	-	-	+50%	-
AT	+50%	-	-	+25%	-
MT	-	-	+50%	-	-
Mot Inf	-	-	+25%	+25%	-

Now let's do the math (lucky that Dxter's calculator exists). I'll be using allies for both sides since there are no boosts for specific units to either side.

Forest:

Attacking army wins after round 13 (7.5 hours)

Mountains:

Attacking army wins after round 9 (4.5 hours)

Urban:

Attacking army wins after round 9 (4.5 hours)

Plains:

Attacking army wins after round 6 (3 hours)

Hills:

Attacking army wins after round 9 (4.5 hours)

Oh no! My argument, it's being torn to shreds...is what the uneducated would think. Alas, I never said that my army was superior to the enemy's in terms of regular combat. Call in the artillery!

Now, I can use my artillery to bomb the incoming MT/mot inf army and retreat, along with my meat shield. Technically speaking, your army would be faster, but I would be the one controlling the territory, so you would get the 50% speed penalty. Even if your artillery somehow was able to bomb the meat shield, it wouldn't matter, damage distribution would make it so minimal damage is suffered (since artillery is most deadly against HA, but my stack is 67% soft and 33% LA) The same cannot be said for your stack, which would take damage every 30 minutes no matter what, and would suffer more since 50% is HA whilst other half is soft.

_Pyth0n_ · Jul 8th 2023, 5:08pm

Now to address your other points. (I was going to simulate with TDs as well, but I feel like above evidence is enough to prove my point.)

Carking the 6th wrote:

The thing here is that you are not slowing it down too far. Motorized infantry does not need to have its full speed to be effective, and the damage that MT’s add is worth far more than the speed. At least from anecdotal evidence, the strength of MT’s ends up being far more useful to me than the reduction of speed that I receive.

Speed is vitally important, way more than whatever damage a MT can contribute. If you were going to argue that mot inf is a good unit, I would have to agree with you; it's super fast, can scout, and has really good damage (except planes, but there can't be the perfect unit, I suppose). But why waste one of its greatest features? A MT only brings additional 6.5 LA damage and 3.5 HA damage, which can easily be supplemented by attack bombers or artillery? In fact, why bother using MTs when a counter to armour is already being produced by you: artillery? You're wasting precious resources on a unit that just slows down armies. And a point talking about how MT is faster than artillery is invalid, since you mention you produce artillery as well.

Carking the 6th wrote:

I’ll have to ask for clarification here. What exactly do you mean? Maybe I’m just not reading this right, though.

You're asking clarification for this part, I assume?:
"I suppose it wouldn't slow down artillery (not SP tho, since its faster than MT), but what's the point? Why would you keep an offensive unit in a ranged stack (of arty (SP or not) and rocket arty (SP or not))?"

Artillery is slower than MT, so it might make sense in a weird, twisted way to combine them (SP artillery is faster than MT, but for the reason below, its pointless)

But what is the point of keeping MT with artillery, when it should be used offensively in hand-to-hand combat, whilst artillery should be used to bombard from a range?

Again, sorry if I didn't clarify enough, please tell which part exactly you don't understand.

Carking the 6th wrote:

I can concede that it’s used more often than I made it seem, but it’s less being used too often, and more not being used correctly. Like every unit it can be effective when used well, or crushed, if prepared for. But I don’t see it used hyper often, with most opting for Light tanks or armored cars-and not without reason; these units can be very effective as well, or torn to shreds if adequately prepared enough

Really? For the most part, I see MTs way more that I see ACs (unless in a skilled lobby). I do agree tho that people churn out LTs for the sake of it, not to use it properly. But same thing can be applied for MTs, literally no one uses them properly for all I can see.

Carking the 6th wrote:

I’m gonna disagree with this point, mostly with the Tank destroyer. This unit is only good when taking on armored units, especially in a defensive posture. And while it’s great against armored units, it’s very very weak in comparison to unarmored ones. In fact I’ve seen 2 AA take it on and defeat a TD. All same level.

TDs aren't meant to be used alone; ACs, Inf/Militia and AA are vital for their survival. The TDs are used in the meat shield to deter attacks from any amour (A HT can beat a TD, but it costs way more and in most cases you can outproduce HTs; MTs stand no chance). I do agree tho on its own, a MT is better than a TD, because of versatility, average damage and usefulness, but with other units, a TD will outshine a MT.

Carking the 6th wrote:

Armored cars are pretty good, but I think they are inferior to motorized infantry in the cost and damage balance department. While they could be more useful than the medium tank, the fact that they are less balanced stats wise and inferior to Motorized infantry. I’ve fought them before, whether they are used as a main unit or the scout and I come out on top-most of the time. But to be fair here I haven’t used them often enough to be credible here. So I’ll take your word for it and cede that they might be better, depending on circumstances.

The argument wasn't that they were better than mot inf; it was that they are better than MTs. General K and others can educate you on the superiority of ACs compared to mot inf in older threads (you'd have to find them yourself)

Carking the 6th wrote:

Then again I’m the CarKing so my judgement is final!

Of course, my lord

(I had to split my response in 2, because of the 10,000 character limit, which is blatantly wrong, I only have around 8.700 characters :tumbleweed:

)

Danieliyoverde123 · Jul 8th 2023, 6:01pm

the main reason why MT are not used its not because they have low stats or their usefullness, the main problem is that you have to choose between a lot of units, and instead of producing tanks its better to invest those resources in other units, ranged units are best because you can abuse their range, thats why rrg dominate at certain point not because their stats wich are pretty low for their price but because you can abuse their range.

Beetween choose a units that can deal damage not suffering damage in return and accumulate advantage over time and a unit that suffer damage over time with every victory i think the decision its clear.

stardragon225 · Jul 8th 2023, 8:21pm

I like light tanks are better for mobility. Meduim tanks have thier spot though

Carking the 6th · Jul 9th 2023, 6:56am

Yeah that was what I was asking for clarification. I can see your point here, though I’d still say the medium tank is underrated. I see it too often treated like heavy tanks and used terribly, and it seems that being similar to the heavy tank is the general consensus. I find this strange since I use it as one of my main units a lot of the time, breaking holes in enemy lines that artillery would take to long to do and allowing me to capture many cities.

But if there is one thing I do disagree with, it’s the tank destroyer being better. As you said with the medium tank, how useful is the heavy tank damage when it’s slower and artillery does the same thing? Except here it takes away from unarmored damage heavily. Other units do the heavy armor job better than either the TD or MT. The difference is the MT is faster and more versatile, so unless we’re talking allied doctrine I will stick with the Medium tank being superior to the Tank Destroyer.

I’ll just take your admission that it’s a High Mid tier and use it as Copium! I’m too lazy to reply to all your points…

Tolol_aja · Jul 9th 2023, 7:17am

Carking the 6th wrote:

The medium tank is a strange case. While I do see it used, it it’s not awfully often. This is in contrast to my generous wielding of the unit, often to powerful effect. The medium tank is excellent on the offense and a versatile unit that works well hand in hand with others. When used correctly in conjunction with other forces, the medium tank is arguably the best tank unit in game.

so basically medium tank weren't so good individually but work very well if paired with other unit? (combined arms)then you can't say that "the medium tank is arguably the best tank unit in the game" it does not matter, the matter is what kind of combination you use.

combined arms of MT, Arty & Infantry would get decimated by combined arms of Heavy tank And RRG but can i say Heavy tank were better? nope. again, it's all about kind of combination. (what in the hell i'm talking about?)

but at least you got my point. for instance

in combined arms MT can serve as a passive protection and spearhead breakthrough role
and TD can serve as a passive protection role only (making your forces sturdier)

for active damage dealer role you can use fragiler bomber or slower artillery

for army vision and scouting role you have Mot. Infa (using wheat) or Armored Car (using metal)

etc..... etc ..... etc ......

Rachellreist · Jul 9th 2023, 7:19am

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

With this you read my argument wrong, I wasn’t saying that the only strategy was to use Medium tanks, artillery and motorized infantry on land, I was so only saying that they go hand in hand with them. I use infantry to protect my artillery all the time. In this case I was simply giving an example of their strength on the offensive. There are plenty of strategies for them, this is just one of them.

The whole point of the thread is to argue the usefulness of MT. My counterpoint is that MT is not worth investing in; those resources are better used to develop industry or make other units. Even I agree that stat-wise, MTs are pretty good and an mid-high tier unit, but it's just not worth producing. You say that you use multiple strategies, but in the end the MT strategy is not needed. If we were fighting a battle, I would only need to produce artillery, AT/TD, inf, and AC, whilst you would need to produce artillery, MT, mot inf, and inf (I'm ignoring AA/ints and bombers for the sake of numbers, we'd both obviously be using them)
Let's look at the numbers (ignoring doctrines, since with Axis you would win in almost all cases)
*all units are lvl 1
(no money values, since it is extremely easy to get)

Food Goods MP Steel Oil RM
Inf 930 440 970 - - -
AC - 490 1100 740 620 -
AT 390 850 740 120 - -
TD 1240 1210 1040 450
Artillery 560 1300 1050 310 - -
Mot. Inf 1310 310 1200 - 310 -
MT 1350 1320 1130 490

Let's assume both sides have equal numbers of artillery, so their production cost won't be counted in for this example.

I can produce 1 Inf, 1 AC, and 1 AT for 1320 food, 1780 goods, 2810 MP, 860 steel, and 620 oil. You can produce 1 MT, 1 Inf and 1 Mot Inf for 2240 food, 750 goods, 3520 MP, 1320 steel, 1440 oil and 490 RMs. The only thing that my stack is more expensive in is the goods department (1030 more, or 42%, which is significant, I will admit, but since I'm not considering artillery, both sides will spend massive quantities of goods regardless), and my stack does not need any RM, only needs 43% of the oil, 59% of the food, 65% of the steel, and 80% of the MP.

Obviously, we can't just look at the cost; we must also look at the damage. Reminder: My stack is 1 inf, 1 AC, and 1 AT, whilst opponent's stack is 1 MT and 1 Mot inf (you mention that you'd be using your inf to defend your artillery since in 99% of cases wouldn't be using it to attack.)

I'll be considering my stack as defensive, since that's how I'd be using it (to protect my artillery with a meat shield), and I'll be considering opponent's stack as offensive, since that is what MTs and mot inf are used for.

Dmg vs Soft L. Armour H. Armour
Inf 4.5 2.3 1.5
AC 4.5 1.5 1.0
AT 1.0 4.6 6.0
MT 4.5 6.5 3.5
Mot Inf 6.0 3.0 2.3

In total, my stack does 10 soft dmg, 8.4 L.A dmg and 8.5 H.A. dmg, whilst your stack does 10.5 soft dmg, 9.5 LA dmg and 5.8 HA dmg. Now let's look at HP values for each stack:

Inf: 15
AC: 20
AT: 15
Total: 50

MT: 40
Mot Inf: 20
Total: 60

Opponent's stack has more HP than my stack. Not to worry! Terrain will save the day

Forest Mountains Plains Urban Hills
Inf +20% +20% - +50% -
AC - - - +50% -
AT +50% - - +25% -
MT - - +50% - -
Mot Inf - - +25% +25% -

Now let's do the math (lucky that Dxter's calculator exists). I'll be using allies for both sides since there are no boosts for specific units to either side.

Forest:

Attacking army wins after round 13 (7.5 hours)

Mountains:

Attacking army wins after round 9 (4.5 hours)

Urban:

Attacking army wins after round 9 (4.5 hours)

Plains:

Attacking army wins after round 6 (3 hours)

Hills:

Attacking army wins after round 9 (4.5 hours)

Oh no! My argument, it's being torn to shreds...is what the uneducated would think. Alas, I never said that my army was superior to the enemy's in terms of regular combat. Call in the artillery!

Now, I can use my artillery to bomb the incoming MT/mot inf army and retreat, along with my meat shield. Technically speaking, your army would be faster, but I would be the one controlling the territory, so you would get the 50% speed penalty. Even if your artillery somehow was able to bomb the meat shield, it wouldn't matter, damage distribution would make it so minimal damage is suffered (since artillery is most deadly against HA, but my stack is 67% soft and 33% LA) The same cannot be said for your stack, which would take damage every 30 minutes no matter what, and would suffer more since 50% is HA whilst other half is soft.

Spam post

Rachellreist · Jul 9th 2023, 7:20am

that was a spam post

Everyone blames me 4 spamming but I don’t do stuff like this

_Pyth0n_ · Jul 9th 2023, 7:29am

Rachellreist wrote:

that was a spam post

Everyone blames me 4 spamming but I don’t do stuff like this

We're having a detailed debate on the virtues of MTs, no one forced you to read it. If you actually ready it, you can see that I'm actually countering Carking's points, not just writing shit for the sake of it.

Carking the 6th · Jul 9th 2023, 7:37am

Tolol_aja wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

The medium tank is a strange case. While I do see it used, it it’s not awfully often. This is in contrast to my generous wielding of the unit, often to powerful effect. The medium tank is excellent on the offense and a versatile unit that works well hand in hand with others. When used correctly in conjunction with other forces, the medium tank is arguably the best tank unit in game.

so basically medium tank weren't so good individually but work very well if paired with other unit? (combined arms)then you can't say that "the medium tank is arguably the best tank unit in the game" it does not matter, the matter is what kind of combination you use.
combined arms of MT, Arty & Infantry would get decimated by combined arms of Heavy tank And RRG but can i say Heavy tank were better? nope. again, it's all about kind of combination. (what in the hell i'm talking about?)

but at least you got my point. for instance

in combined arms MT can serve as a passive protection and spearhead breakthrough role
and TD can serve as a passive protection role only (making your forces sturdier)

for active damage dealer role you can use fragiler bomber or slower artillery

for army vision and scouting role you have Mot. Infa (using wheat) or Armored Car (using metal)

etc..... etc ..... etc ......

Fair enough.

_Pyth0n_ wrote:

Rachellreist wrote:

that was a spam post

Everyone blames me 4 spamming but I don’t do stuff like this

We're having a detailed debate on the virtues of MTs, no one forced you to read it. If you actually ready it, you can see that I'm actually countering Carking's points, not just writing shit for the sake of it.

I can confirm this, since I read it. We were simply having a debate. I get our brain power is too much for you to comprehend, but you must try your best!

Danieliyoverde123 · Jul 9th 2023, 1:34pm

TD are great, they are more specialized but that mean they also can be mixed with other units to deal a great combo, they are also more versatile in their roles.
MT are not necesary better than TD, its a case of what role does your unit deal in your composition, but ill give reason why i consider td overall better than mt.

1 stealth, 2 bonus on more variety of terrain, 3 its as good as offensive than mt as the armored offensive damage is superior than mt, if combine with tactical bomber, motorized or sp rcket artyllery you get a good combo, 4 destroy any tank strategy, 5 its great for defending artillery units from tanks or just a shield against other units.

The main advantage of versatile units like tanks i would say is that you can focus on that specific units, not need for divide your research as much as you dont need complement, just spam more and get them highly upgraded, the problem is focus on a specific unit consume a lot of a specific resources, the economy since 1.5 encourage get a more variety of units.

Carking the 6th · Jul 9th 2023, 1:40pm

Thing is the specialized damage, which leads to weakness in other categories can never really be made up for. When I meet stacks with large amounts of Tank destroyers I just find them so easy to destroy by air or land, even more so than MT’s. Maybe I’ve never met a person who uses them right, but I’ve never had an issue with TD’s before.

_Pyth0n_ · Jul 9th 2023, 2:01pm

Carking the 6th wrote:

Thing is the specialized damage, which leads to weakness in other categories can never really be made up for. When I meet stacks with large amounts of Tank destroyers I just find them so easy to destroy by air or land, even more so than MT’s. Maybe I’ve never met a person who uses them right, but I’ve never had an issue with TD’s before.

You gotta understand this; tanks can never be used on their own. You'll always be pairing it up with other units: TDs with Inf/Militia or MTs with Mot Inf or SPAA. You'd never use just MTs, since there is an easy counter. Likewise, TDs are never used on their own. In that sense, TDs are better than MTs, because they have a specialized role in the stack: Kill armour. MTs also have this role in a stack, but are less useful since they excel at killing L. armour whilst being mediocre at killing H. armour.

Danieliyoverde123 wrote:

TD are great, they are more specialized but that mean they also can be mixed with other units to deal a great combo, they are also more versatile in their roles.
MT are not necesary better than TD, its a case of what role does your unit deal in your composition, but ill give reason why i consider td overall better than mt.

1 stealth, 2 bonus on more variety of terrain, 3 its as good as offensive than mt as the armored offensive damage is superior than mt, if combine with tactical bomber, motorized or sp rcket artyllery you get a good combo, 4 destroy any tank strategy, 5 its great for defending artillery units from tanks or just a shield against other units.

The main advantage of versatile units like tanks i would say is that you can focus on that specific units, not need for divide your research as much as you dont need complement, just spam more and get them highly upgraded, the problem is focus on a specific unit consume a lot of a specific resources, the economy since 1.5 encourage get a more variety of units.

All these points clearly demonstrate the superiority of TDs. Carking, your point of "so easy to destroy by air" isn't valid; MTs can easily be destroyed in the same way. And destroyed by ground: by what? Give some examples.

Share