AT Crew unit is abit of a mess.

[Elliott]

So the AT crew is a modern era unit unlocked at chemistry, its got 70 base strength with a bonus against cavalry class units, costs 400 production and 4 gold per turn to maintain and requires no other resorces.

Lets compare that with the infantry another modern era unit that comes slightly earlier in the modern era at replaceable parts. The infantry is also 70 strength and has a 10% bonus against anti cavalry units. But then it costs 30 more production, costs 6 gold a turn to maintain as well as one oil a turn!

The question I put to you is why bother with infantry as a general purpose fighter when AT crews can fill the same role while being cheaper and not using any of your precious oil. Sure the infantry can beat the AT crew but cant your oil be better used for other units?

Also the AI is now fighting with a sea of AT crews before the Tanks they are meant to counter have even been invented presumably because they dont cost any strategics so can be spammed.

Am I missing something here? Feel like the AT crew should at least cost oil like the infantry.

[Prometheus]

If AT costs Oil, why not just build infantry or tanks?

[Dendonker]

Lol, so when I ran into Alexander and all he had was AT Crews this is why. Dude had most of his civ on the ocean coast and didn't have a single boat. Are these jobs a joke to developers? One of many jobs or something? Limited time jobs and then you just let it be? Jesus Christ man.

Originally posted by Prometheus:

If AT costs Oil, why not just build infantry or tanks?

Because they are supposed to counter tanks?

[Prometheus]

How is that a reason? He obviously didn't build infantry or tanks because he had no Oil to do so. If AT also costs Oil, what would you have faced? An ocean of MGs and AA guns. Is that better?

[Prometheus]

Originally posted by Bobby:

Lol, so when I ran into Alexander and all he had was AT Crews this is why. Dude had most of his civ on the ocean coast and didn't have a single boat. Are these jobs a joke to developers? One of many jobs or something? Limited time jobs and then you just let it be? Jesus Christ man.

Originally posted by Prometheus:

If AT costs Oil, why not just build infantry or tanks?

Because they are supposed to counter tanks?

Tanks counter tanks well, and are more versatile than AT.

[Exemplar]

eh, if you are going heavy science AT comes with the program because of chemistry you'll want for research labs. you might not even look at the bottom half of the tech tree to get tanks until after satellites.

[Dendonker]

If you have a unit that actually counters another unit it may be quite a good idea to have some of it. Having tanks struggle against something makes for more interesting choices.

[Salma Hayek]

The reason I get infantries and not AT crews every single game is the upgrade tree. You want warriors and then swordsmen, and you upgrade them into infantries. I pretty much never build a late game unit, everything is upgraded from the start. We might get 1 spearman or 2 sometimes in specific cases but they are very rarely the best unit to build at any point.

Truth is mass range+heavy cavalry seems like the best option.

[Prometheus]

Originally posted by Bobby:

If you have a unit that actually counters another unit it may be quite a good idea to have some of it. Having tanks struggle against something makes for more interesting choices.

It is good to have something to counter, but in GS Oil is precious and it is already crowded with units competing for it, as well as the Oil plant for power.

You have

Biplane
Inf/Mech inf
Arty/Rocket Arty
Destroyer
Missile Cruiser
Submarine
Tank/Modern Armor

When I think which if these units would I rather spend Oil upkeep on per turn, AT loses hard, to all of them, unless we are talking a solid round Pangaea map. I would never build them. Why not just Arty the tanks and counter with tanks?

[w.f.schepel]

The main issue is that AT is too early in the tech tree. Anti tank measures should always follow the invention of the tank, not the other way around. Imho, there should be a WWI tank unit, just like the biplane precedes the WWII era fighter and bomber. And, perhaps, an anti tank gun should precede the AT as well.

[Elhoim]

Originally posted by w.f.schepel:

The main issue is that AT is too early in the tech tree. Anti tank measures should always follow the invention of the tank, not the other way around. Imho, there should be a WWI tank unit, just like the biplane precedes the WWII era fighter and bomber. And, perhaps, an anti tank gun should precede the AT as well.

Yeah, the tech tree is a bit of a mess, thought without much consideration to history or realism.

[Elliott]

Originally posted by Prometheus:

How is that a reason? He obviously didn't build infantry or tanks because he had no Oil to do so. If AT also costs Oil, what would you have faced? An ocean of MGs and AA guns. Is that better?

Now that raises the point of why Infantry have an oil upkeep whereas these units you mention do not. Perhaps it is the infantry that should have no strategic resorce upkeep and these other units should cost oil.

Being able to field infantry is the most basic action a state can take. Men can be conscripted, given rifles and rudimentary training and you have infantry. High power machine guns and specialist anti tank weaponry are considerably more challenging to aquire and field with machine guns using large quantites of ammunition and AT weapons firing specialised munitions.

Yet currently in Civ the AT crew is a cheap unit that seemingly requires no additional supplies from the state outside of the basic maintinence cost wheras infantry demand much more.